Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 kB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 212.8 kB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, it's been a good run. I'll get this set up later today. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna leave this up for context and so the entire page isn't blank. Either way, @Zxcvbnm, thank you for the reminder. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just made the second archive page for my talk page. Any prior discussions between my previous archive and when I post this can be found in Archive 2. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! :) I found these sources for Pokémon Team Turbo. Are these enough for an article and do you see any more sources?

• https://web.archive.org/web/20141114172403/http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=48554
• https://web.archive.org/web/20070209003807/http://www.imaginengine.com/products/Games/showproduct.asp?ID=42
• https://www.thegamer.com/pokemon-kart-racer-awful/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20051027065400/http://valusoft.com/products/pokemonturbo.html
• https://www.deviantart.com/ryansilberman/journal/Retro-Review-Pokemon-Team-Turbo-627430001
• https://web.archive.org/web/20061230200747/http://www.valusoft.com/pressreleases/05-10-27.html

Timur9008 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timur9008 many of these are PRIMARY references (Namely the Valusoft and ImagineEngine sources), AllGame is just stating a summary of what the game is like a catalog, DeviantArt is an unreliable source, and TheGamer doesn't contribute to notability per Wikipedia:VALNET. I fear none of these contribute to notability per Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, I'm sorry to say. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure about DeviantArt. Do you see any other sources? Timur9008 (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timur9008 not when I did a brief search, no. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! I will keep looking then. (maybe some Japanese sources exist) Timur9008 (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Sontaran has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 23 November 2025. 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 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by those who assist the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Time Lord is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Gommeh -- Gommeh (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Time Lord has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Gommeh -- Gommeh (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Fire Emblem Shadows is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OpalYosutebito -- OpalYosutebito (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Pokémon Friends has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in October, including new quality content! My latest: Roberta Alexander, - listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Victoria Waterfield is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The Web of Fear is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Malamar is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Malamar has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Slitheen is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Slitheen has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Ood is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OmegaAOL -- OmegaAOL (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Ood has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OmegaAOL -- OmegaAOL (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been struggling with trimming the plot on Ray Palmer (Arrowverse), I wondering if you'd be willing to do it, I'm assuming you haven't seen Legends of Tomorrow so would likely be able to be a bit more objective in what you deem relevant to the character. No worries if not Olliefant (she/her) 06:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant I can try taking a look at some point soon and draft out some form of axing info. You're correct I haven't seen the show so I'll do my best, but if something seems trivial to me that is actually super important in the show let me know. I'll ping you again when I've got something mocked up. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant User:Pokelego999/sandbox/Ray Palmer this is my best attempt. This article was very long and there was so much stuff is in here that it was really hard to figure out what was important or not (I couldn't really tell what were minor, single episode appearances or things that were major parts of a wider arc or something else). I tried to trim it down to just moments where Ray was super relevant, but I may have missed some stuff.

Thoughts:

-I'd specify what is in particular shows; I'd assume the first chunk or so is from Arrow while the time travelling stuff is Legends of Tomorrow? I'd divide this with subheadings based on Appearances.

-I was uncertain about the last paragraph and if the appearances in there were already covered or not; if not, I'd include them in a subheading elsewhere (Perhaps something like "Other appearances"? Though I don't know if they are important to the overall Arrowverse timeline or not.) I'd try to find a source for the Lego appearance because I worry that may be OR since it's creating a similarity not specified in its home media.

-I largely axed a lot of info of the wider, less Ray-specific arcs; feel free to add back stuff for context on that. I'd advise only including the context that's necessary (I.e, important elements you'd need to know to understand what's going on). I'd also make sure to define it in a way that would make sense to someone who has never watched Arrowverse, as the original has a lot of fan terminology or shorthands that only really make sense if you've seen the shows.

-This is largely unrelated to Appearances, but make sure you've got some good SIGCOV for this particular incarnation of Ray Palmer. Alternate versions that lack strong individual SIGCOV routinely get redirected back to their parent articles (In this case, Atom (Ray Palmer)) so I'd find some strong stuff that justifies why this article needs to be a separate splitout. If you need help or examples or something, let me know, as character notability is a very particular topic in terms of coverage. If you've already got sources and just have yet to incorporate them, ignore this.

Let me know if I can clarify/help with anything else regarding this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help! I'll look over your draft and then incoperate it in the article, as for coverage I do have a good amount of third party sources I just haven't got around to including them (A few [1][2][3][4]) Olliefant (she/her) 19:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page based off your sandbox with a few tweaks. Would you mind giving it a look? Olliefant (she/her) 06:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant

-I'm not entirely sure Early Life is necessary, since nothing in there is really important to his later Appearances and is mostly just in-universe trivia.

-I'd include an introduction of his character before the mentions of Smoak, i.e basically like what his job is or something like that (I assume he's like some rich tech guy? Include that at the front).

-I'd clarify the city they're in during the Arrow paragraphs.

-Not sure Sara needs to be mentioned in the first Legends of Tomorrow paragraph given she isn't mentioned again afterwards.

-I feel the Appearances section after all of his appearances have been described is a bit odd, but I'm admittedly not sure of the best course of action there.

-Rest of this section looks fine. I've made a few touch-ups for grammar and such so take a look and see if you're alright with that. Let me know what else I can do. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more question (for now), I've been touching up the existing stuff currently. However before I starting building "Critical reception" would you say its appropriate to episode reviews for this? I'd say so but I would apperciate your thoughts Olliefant (she/her) 07:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant I'd say there's nothing against it, but you shouldn't rely on it. I'd only include them if Ray's reception is a significant part of the review, i.e, say if he is the focus of multiple paragraphs of reception or analysis, for example. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The Web of Fear has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The Web of Fear has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Our high scorers in the final round were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your good article nomination of the article Victoria Waterfield has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say I really don't understand why the conversation in the AfD escalated so much. You handled yourself very well against unnecessary hostility. As editors, we can disagree, but it should always be done in a respectful manner, which that definitely wasn't. I am not going to engage with them any further and will just wait for any new !votes to come through rather than let it continue to escalate. 11WB (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB thank you for the kind words, and again I'm sorry about the trouble. I might do the same on my part and just let the conversation halt after the next reply. We've both said our pieces and continuing this discussion will likely just derail it further. Some unrelated editors should come in and make their stances known to truly get a proper consensus on this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the discussion on WP:VALNET particularly helpful. It prompted me to look at other video game articles yesterday, and I noticed that pretty much all of them are devoid of TheGamer, GameRant etc. This point is completely valid, despite what others have said regarding some articles from those outlets being reliable dependent on when they were written. 11WB (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will say on Valnet: There's nothing inherently wrong with using them so long as they're considered reliable and there's no other stipulations (Big one being don't use them in BLPs or controversial statements). They're a very low quality source however. They don't provide notability and, at FAC, barring a few exceptions, typically tend to be looked down upon. For GAs and overall use they should be fine to use in the article if you need to verify details, but just be wary of using them to try and establish an article's notability, and don't overuse them, as it can lead to the article being seen as lower quality in its content. That's the short and sweet of it anyway. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the few times I am genuinely unhappy with how an AfD has gone. The fact it is an article I authored adds a sting, however it is due to the unfounded accusations that have been thrown which I find to be quite unnecessary and disrespectful. The consensus which looks to be keep, whilst a positive from my point of view, has been dampened because of the hostility. This is not your fault at all, and I actually want to thank you for bringing attention to a valid point regarding VALNET. It is a genuine issue which editors do need to be aware of. 11WB (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB It's usually not this bad, so I'm sorry it happened to be this time around. For my part, I've elected to withdraw it for now given this is better discussed at a different venue, and I feel as though the discussion has derailed past the point of being productive for either side. While I do feel it's better discussed at merger, I will not be taking further action against the article for now to allow you time to develop it with your own research; you turned up some sources I was unfamiliar with and I feel you have potential to expand coverage of this topic area. If I have any further concerns I will contact you on your talk page rather than stress you further with an instant AfD or merger, but as of now my only major one is just to remove the obviously unreliable sources for the time being and develop the article from there. I wish you the best of luck for your further work, and I'm sorry again about the trouble. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I have responded over at the AfD. Currently working on a new draft (something unrelated to video games), but I will make sure the Showdown article is improved as soon as possible. The AfD was helpful at pinpointing WP:SPS, however I agree there are still others that need either assessing or removal completely. I am going to hold off writing a Smogon article for now, as I fear that similar sourcing issues will arise. Always happy to talk anywhere (even at AfD without the drama)! 11WB (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to work on Smogon; at worst I'd be happy to take a look over sourcing if you need it. At worst it's helpful for getting more experience working on articles, especially those in a topic area you're interested in. For Showdown, I will say that some sources I pointed as problematic (Namely some ABOUTSELF sources) are alright to use, even if they do not count for notability, which was largely the bulk of my AfD concerns. Feel free to keep those in. I would only remove the ones that are strictly unreliable or of dubious publication, though if you have a good argument for keeping them under ABOUTSELF or some similar policy, feel free to retain the source. If I can help or clarify with anything please let me know. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pokelego999, it looks like some work has been done to the article. I have some concerns regarding Polygon. It seems it was sold to Valnet back in May. Polygon is categorised as a reliable source on the cite plugins. Due to this revelation, I feel as though I'm not able to create articles on videogames anymore. The only gaming outlet left that is not owned by Valnet seems to be Kotaku. 11WB (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @11WB there are plenty of reliable sources for video games, as omnipresent as Valnet seems to be. You can find the full list of Valnet sources at Wikipedia:VALNET; most of it is content farm churnalism sites like the Rants or CBR, hence why they pop up so much more than other sources, but there are a lot of big name sources you can find at Wikipedia:VG/S you can use like IGN, Eurogamer, GamesRadar, and a lot more. As of right now Polygon is usually fine to use (Especially if it hails before the Valnet buyoff, with pre-Valnet Polygon being notability granting as well and a very strong source) since it's unclear if there's been a quality drop as of yet or not.

  If you're referring to specifically Showdown's article, the ones you're using are 100% fine to use. On Showdown also are reliable sources like Destructoid, and you do have a number of reliable sources such as The Verge and numerous research papers discussing the AI research and such. Even if the Reception isn't as large as an official game you definitely can build something with it; sometimes you can make reception sections without critical reception. For instance, I once researched a character that only had analysis in books but no discussion from critics, but that still passed the notability bar. Let me know if I can clarify anything but trust me when I say you have options outside of Valnet on the whole for video games. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for this. I suppose one of my biggest concerns when creating articles relating to video games is how they will be received by the regulars, such as yourself and @Zxcvbnm. There seems to be a pretty high bar for what is actually considered notable. I was involved in discussion of the Enderman article, which was eventually merged at AFD. The Sylveon article I approved at AfC was also merged. Those two articles were deleted after. One of my own video games related articles was also deleted, though I knew this was likely anyway, that one was very borderline. Your analysis of the Showdown was very thorough, which others unfairly criticised, I genuinely believe the AfD has allowed the article to exist in a better state. I am annoyed that Valnet has so much monopoly of gaming outlets and that they pump out what is basically spam all for the purpose of search engines listings. It makes the job of finding topics that are actually notable, much more difficult. I will continue being involved in the video game part of Wikipedia, as it is a massive interest to me, but from now on I'm going to have to be far more careful with the sources I use. 11WB (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @11WB I will say at the very least I tend to be stricter on sources than most; a lot of editors will only care if it meets the Wikipedia:GNG bar, which, for most VG topics, tends to basically be three in depth pieces of significant coverage from reliable sources, but can be more or less depending on the topic. There are obviously cases where editors will believe an article is better merged, and in some parts of the project, like VGCHAR, notability tends to be treated much more strictly.

  As an example for video game characters: Kleavor uses a lot of weaker end reception sources, but its analysis section has several pieces of strong SIGCOV that allow it to meet GNG. Or, for example, with Meltan, the EGM, Gizmodo, Meristation, and Variety provide enough pull to count as SIGCOV, with the rest of the reception beefed up by that. The sources I mention in question tend to have a lot of focus put on the subject in question, hence making the coverage significant. There are many cases where the sources can be weaker and still count as SIGCOV, though. Sometimes it does come down to how well you can argue for a source's usage, but admittedly that's usually only in cases where the subjects are very much towing the line of notability and are edge cases. Honestly Wikipedia:VGCHAR is more than willing to help with sources and such, but do keep in mind they tend to be stricter about sources like me compared to most other editors.

  For video games themselves, the bar is a lot less strict since there oftentimes is not really a good merge target, which means even smaller splits would be more justified since there would be no other place for the article content to go. For instance, my recent work on Fire Emblem Shadows is a smaller article but has a bunch of reviews and stuff that allow for a split to make sense while still meeting notability. Even obscure topics can have a decent helping of coverage: My favorite example is M&M's Kart Racing; very little dev info but more than enough coverage to meet GNG and be a Good Article despite it all. Honestly I'd browse Good Articles to see what tends to work and what doesn't, and especially eye smaller ones to see what the bottom line tends to be, since it can fluctuate quite a bit. Typically all you need though is a few good reviews, some info on the game's release and dev timeline (Where possible) and you're good to go.

  Beyond those two, I'm a bit less familiar, but they more or less work off similar principles, just with different formatting. Some topics inherently do work off different guidelines on the site and thus fall under more sitewide notability policies. For instance, a Wikipedia:BLP (Or biography of a living person) is likely going to have the same very light notability threshold it would have anywhere else on the website, regardless of what project it falls under. I can give more specifics if there's a particular topic that doesn't fall under characters or games you're interested in, but that's the very short and sweet of it.

  Sourcing itself is fickle and there can often be a lot of times where you have to make judgements about sources, but a lot of that is learned through experience. It's a matter of familiarizing yourself with relevant sources and policies over time, and I'd highly recommend using Wikipedia:VG/S as a guide since it contains info on nearly every source you're likely to run into. If there are any sources you're unsure of, feel free to reach out either there or to any experienced users and we can definitely try to help. I am glad the AfD was helpful in some capacity, though again I am sorry about it being such a stressor in the first place. I do hope you continue editing in the project space, and I'm always happy to support you in any way I can. I do hope my above is helpful for resources and tips, but if you need any more clarification as a whole let me know and I can break something down more specifically. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Figured I would start a new discussion rather than keep posting to the previous one. I have done a cursory search for usable sources that could be used for a Smogon article. As the site has both the forums and what it calls the "University", it would probably be best to have the article titled as "Smogon" so everything relevant can be included in one article.

WP:PRIMARY - Interviews with Smogon creator:
Substack - https://johto.substack.com/p/interview-with-smogon-university - Per WP:NPPSG and this RS/N discussion, Substack pages have to be assessed independently from one another.
The Smog - https://www.smogon.com/smog/issue1/interview

General coverage (WP:SIGCOV) from reliable sources:
Kotaku - https://kotaku.com/pokemon-scarlet-violet-paradox-smogon-tier-rankings-1850003381 https://kotaku.com/competitive-pokemon-website-trolls-sad-pokemon-1709882580
Polygon - https://www.polygon.com/2020/1/30/21115549/pokemon-sword-shield-nintendo-switch-smogon-vgc-competitive-ban-dynamax/ https://www.polygon.com/pokemon/23482117/competitive-pokemon-ban-smogon-palafin-flutter-mane-houndstone/

From VALNET (WP:MREL) owned sources:
GameRant: https://gamerant.com/pokemon-smogon-tiers-explained/ https://gamerant.com/smogon-first-pokemon-scarlet-violet-tiering-decisions/

Academic sources: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=smogon+university&btnG= - There are many usable sources indexed on that search.

These would be what I use to build an article. It's an unsurprisingly similar result as the Pokémon Showdown article. Your feedback would be highly appreciated. I'll also ping @Zxcvbnm, that way there are multiple opinions from experienced video game article editors! 11WB (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources are not immediately reliable sources. For example, "Gotta Win'em All: How Expert Play in the Online Community of Smogon Changes Pokemon" might seem like huge SIGCOV, but it was only cited by 1 person.

There are some major problems with creating a Smogon article. First of all, I do think that this is weaker sourcing than Showdown, with most of the sources not being SIGCOV. There's also a pre-existing page on Pokémon video game series competitive play, so there is huge WP:OVERLAP. Smogon is just a community, while Showdown is in itself an app, so there's something separate to talk about.

Overall, I think Smogon would be heavily likely to fail an AfD, but even if it didn't, it would be likely to be merged. My !vote to keep Showdown also didn't preclude a merge either, I just thought that an AfD was the wrong avenue and that it seemed notable, and Pokelego was just pushing the deletion angle way too hard. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue with VALNET and it's poor article churning for search result listings. PL was absolutely right to have that as their reason for not keeping the article. Most of the secondary sources are VALNET ones.

Smogon has created a unique tiering system for its own use, one that is referenced even outside of its own community. Showdown relies on Smogon pretty much for its entire existence, as without those tiered formats there would be no reason for Smogon players to go there. If we take the approach that Showdown is the more notable of the two, a section dedicated to Smogon within the Pokémon Showdown article could be an interesting alternative. 11WB (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that even if smogon didn’t exist, showdown would have a purpose, since VGC players often test teams on showdown. Stitch123626 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will clarify I was pushing a merger angle only to realize that was (Obviously) better for a merger. For me at worst I'd argue a Redirect; I don't gun for deletion unless there's nothing preserving. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that smogon doesn’t have significant overlap with Pokémon video game series competitive play. The section dedicated to smogon and VGC are tiny and don’t even get its own section. If there is no article for smogon I would argue that the section explaining VGC and smogon should be expanded in Pokémon video game series competitive play Stitch123626 (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stitch123626 it is currently organized the way the sources discuss it within the wider context of competitive Pokémon. Going further specifically into Smogon's intricacies would be UNDUE given they largely do not relate to the wider scene, and Smogon itself, while impactful, doesn't need info such as tiering systems defined in the article at present. I'd be unopposed to an explanation of some kind at Showdown's article provided it's helpful there, but the main article I'm more opposed to. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say my big gripe is I'm seeing little in the way of critical reception. I'd search through those scholar sources and see what good coverage you could turn up, but as of right now these sources seem more like they'd be helpful for the wider competitive article since there isn't a reception, analysis, or impact section to justify a separation. I'd do some more research and see if you can't turn up some more from the Scholar sources for the time being. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't include coverage for reception as I wanted to establish whether Smogon itself had coverage, explaining what it is and how it originated. I am 90% sure there is critical reception on Smogon and I can probably find some sources for this. 11WB (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reception, I was able to find these:

IGN Southeast Asia - https://sea.ign.com/home/65240/feature/inside-the-insane-depth-of-ultra-competitive-pokemon - Has some comments on Smogon's processes.

Kill Screen - https://web.archive.org/web/20230926014956/https://killscreen.com/themeta/inside-battle-soul-competitive-pokemon/ - This is the most in-depth article that exists.

GameRant - https://web.archive.org/web/20250605112519/https://gamerant.com/pokemon-scarlet-violet-competitive-ban-smogon-palafin-iron-bundle/ - General coverage.

TheGamer - https://www.thegamer.com/25-powerful-pokemon-strategies-no-one-uses-theyre-casual/ - More general coverage, some comments on how Game Freak interacts with Smogon.

Amino Apps - https://aminoapps.com/c/pokemon/page/blog/competitive-thoughts-1-my-opinion-on-smogon/ZzhB_uQ3BNpwlRjV6vaPqKXV1eoEJB - Whatever this is. I am unable to access it due to an "upstream request timeout" and it is not archived on Wayback.

https://aminoapps.com/c/pokemon/page/blog/smogon-rant/7GhP_u172jGMvp5Q67J0wqWdMKZ08 - Another one from Amino.

University of Kentucky Proceeding of Flairs journal paper - https://journals.flvc.org/FLAIRS/article/view/130708/133938 - Discusses Smogon's tiering in detail. 11WB (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB Amino Apps I fear is unreliable given it's a social media platform. Those opinions, unless they come from industry professionals (In which case they'd be smth like ABOUTSELF and not count toward notability) are not usable. Beyond that, the sources are pretty solid.

However, at a glance, I think the sources so far do a good job explaining what Smogon is, but don't really describe what impact Smogon's had (I.e, stuff like the impact on the wider community, responses or commentary on Smogon and its practices, etc). This kind of impact is needed for a Reception section to show what wider notability the subject has. I'd see what kind of commentary based section you can build with your sources and work from there, as you have basically everything but that judging from the sources rn, though I may be wrong. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you're keeping an eye on the OG FE Warriors article, you'll have seen I've actually gotten round to starting expanding and tidying. I had to do an emergency rescue job on Ivalice, then two articles within the Ivalice/XII/Tactics space that needed serious TLC. But now I've gotten some Fire Emblem mojo back and I'm in the process of expanding the first article. Once that's done, I'll see if I can move on to Three Hopes. I hope I can fulfil my side of our agreement and get the Fire Emblem series on a sound footing...before someone has to take on Fortune's Weave. ProtoDrake (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake I've seen your work so far! The plot revamp and the new legacy section are looking very good. I've been busy lately but I'll see if I can't start doing some research for Heroes soon. Let me know if I can help with either Warriors game.

For the future, I'd be game to help with Fortune's Weave when the game eventually releases. I don't know if that's in your plans already, but if you intend to work on it I'm game to aid with anything you'd need. Otherwise I can see what I can do solo utilizing your other articles as a base to work off of. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking I might create/do work on an article for Fortune's Weave when we knew more about it, but that's still up in the air. Funnily enough, I don't play these games, I'm just academically interested in them. The thing that would be helpful is, when you can, casting a second eye over the stuff, or other articles if you feel inclines. No pressure. I know from experience I can miss really silly or obvious issues. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For myself, I've played Sacred Stones, Heroes, and a little bit of Shadows but that's about it, but I know enough about the series where I feel confident enough to contribute to them. In terms of articles, I can definitely take a look and keep your methods in mind for when we know more about Fortune's Weave. Let me know if you do or don't plan to work on it and I'll see what I'm able to do. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Fire Emblem Shadows has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OpalYosutebito -- OpalYosutebito (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Victoria Waterfield has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pokelego999; You appear to have a nomination for Peacemaker at this time. I've placed a new nomination to KPop Demon Hunters for FAC as a popular culture film. If you might add a review to the FAC review for this film, then I'd offer to do the review for your current GA nominations after you are done. Does it sound interesting? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause I'd be unopposed to doing so. I can leave comments in a few days' time. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for support in November! - On St. Cecilia's Day - patron saint of music - I remember a composition by Benjamin Britten, and have a woman on the main page who illustrated songs, with a sense of humour. My places take you to Milan, my first visit to La Scala, and music features our latest choral Abendlob, with English music. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Yeti (Doctor Who), introduced: "The Yeti are fictional robots from the British science fiction television series Doctor Who. These robots are minions of the antagonist known as the Great Intelligence and first appeared in the 1967 serial The Abominable Snowmen, and subsequently re-appeared in the 1968 serial The Web of Fear. This is my first FA nomination; though I've had a lot of experience with GAs and had a few successful FL noms, I figured it was about time to dip my toes into FA. I decided to nominate this article because I recently patched it up and feel it has a good shot at meeting FAC criteria, as despite the subject's obscurity it has some surprisingly well-documented creation info and Reception." - Enjoy your first TFA day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pokelego999:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in December!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than half a month of outstanding reviews from the current 2+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 December 2025 through 31 December 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Your good article nomination of the article Peacemaker (character) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ErnestKrause -- ErnestKrause (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DaniloDaysOfOurLives has given you a turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Peacemaker (character) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ErnestKrause -- ErnestKrause (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The Rani is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pokelego, I just wanted to ask for a quick favor. After over two years of procrastination, I think I finally have Super Kirby Clash in a state where I can safely nominate it for GA. However, since this would be my first solo GA, I wanted to run it by you first to make sure I'm not missing something obvious. I'm a bit worried that the article doesn't have enough content, especially since my ultimate goal is to get it to FA someday. If you don't mind, could you please take a quick look over the article and let me know if you find any major problems? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR at a glance it looks solid, and I'd say go for it in terms of GAN. I did a light copyedit, which should help a bit. One point to clarify is whether the plural for "Kirby" is "Kirbys" or "Kirbies", since the article uses both and I admittedly wasn't sure. The reviewer may have some quibbles about organization or clarification on some Kirby series elements, since admittedly me also being familiar with the series may lead me to miss things myself, but there shouldn't be anything egregious in there that would lead to a quickfail. You should be good to go for GAN for the time being.

For FA I do have to agree I'm not super sure, since it's a very short article and not very long in many of its sections. Short articles like this aren't impossible at FA but not very common. I'd ask around with some users who are more frequent in the FA process what their thoughts are on this and see what they have to say. For the purposes of GA this should be more than enough though. If you choose to nominate it, let me know if you need help in any way with addressing anything. Happy editing and best of luck! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll fix the plurals issue and then nominate it for GA in a minute here. I'll ask around about FA once the GAN (hopefully) passes. Thank you for the help, and I'll let you know if I have any more questions. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've recently restarted the draft for In Space with Markiplier, and I'm wondering if you could please help with two things:

1. Find the plot for both parts online and word them in a way that's suitable for Wikipedia.
2. See if some of the citations that were added are suitable.

If and when you have time, please let me know, because I think this deserves to be its own article after you had declined it on November 4.

Thank you in advance,

Jibblesnark86 (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jibblesnark86 I'm seeing a distinct lack of sources that indicate impact (I.e, reviews, analysis, or discussion of the impact of the film, for example) and many of the sources in the article are PRIMARY or questionable. I'd try to find some more third-party coverage discussing the film in similar manners to what I described before. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'll look for more stuff. Meanwhile, do you think you could help with the plots? I'd greatly appreciate it. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jibblesnark86 I have never seen the film, so I can't say I'd be able to with any degree of accuracy, unfortunately. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok... I'm on my own then. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jibblesnark86 sorry that I can't help much with that. That being said, best of luck with the hunt and let me know if I can help further in any way. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's okay. But thank you anyway. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Poke! Saw your BLAR here (which I have no issue with, just keeping content integrity here), with the comment that the audio drama content was already available at the Big Finish page. Just wanted to make you aware for future BLAR's, that the audio drama content only existed at Jenny's page, and was transcluded away from it; Pppery later merged it here. That's mostly always the case when an audio drama exists on a page, it's then transcluded to the relevant article. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 ah, that's my bad. I saw there was a section for Jenny's audios and just assumed it was already transcluded over there. Will make sure to keep a closer eye out in the future. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The Abominable Snowmen is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Delcoan -- Delcoan (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in December! - The 1715 Advent Bach cantata translates to "Prepare the ways", - listen to quite stunning music if you haven't ;) - "places" take you to Copenhagen. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Pokelego999, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pokelego999. I thought I'd just bring up a minor thing I noticed with the list you're working on. I noticed that in the "Conception and design" section, all the Doctors's eras relating to monsters are mentioned, bar the Seventh. I don't have the resources to add anything related to the Seventh Doctor era, so I thought I'd mention it to you, seeing how its your rewrite and you have access to multiple resources. Also, do you feel it would be better to place the Weevil, the Bane and the Shadow Kin under a separate heading such as "Introduced in spin-off media", or leave their entries with all the others? All the best, Mr Sitcom (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Sitcom from what I remember there wasn't much on Seven, but I'll do another dig through to see if I didn't miss anything. I feel for the spin-off monsters, since there's so few, it may be better just to keep it in chronological order? But admittedly I'm not against a separate heading. Sort of related sort of not but I am considering incorporating the Trickster as well (Three major SJA appearances iirc plus members of his Brigade in the other shows, plus Pantheon ties) if that's alright. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree; chronological order would work best. And I think the Trickster should be included too. Mr Sitcom (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The Abominable Snowmen has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Delcoan -- Delcoan (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The Rani has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The Abominable Snowmen has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Delcoan -- Delcoan (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The Rani has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume III, Issue III — December 2025 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who Help! We've been robbed... of a new Doctor Who Christmas special this year :( 2025... I Let You Go *vworp vworp, vworp vworp* The Space-Time Telepgraph is back again with our final issue of the year. With 13-episodes of Who-related content broadcast in 2025, it marked the biggest year in the Whoniverse since 2017! Take a quick read below for all the Wikipedia-related (and non-Wikipedia-related) Doctor Who news that you missed, and everything you have to look forward to. Happy New Year! 🥳🎉 Would you like a jelly baby Good or Featured article? It's been several months since the last newsletter, and a number of new GAs have been added to the quality content list. In total we have promoted nearly 50 Good Articles this year, on top of one Featured Article, making this the year with the largest amount of promoted Doctor Who-related content in Wikipedia history (Beating our previous record of 2012's 36 by a significant margin). Congratulations to all of our editors who have contributed to quality content this year, and we hope to see the number of quality articles under our project grow as time goes on. Intelligence Bulletin from the Subwave Network A five-part miniseries and spin-off of Doctor Who, The War Between the Land and the Sea concluded airing this month on BBC One. The series will release on Disney+ next year. The conclusion of that series on Disney+ will officially mark the end of the co-production deal between the Beeb and the Mouse House that was first announced in 2022. While Doctor Who has been confirmed to continue with a 2026 Christmas Special written by Russell T Davies, its status in international markets has yet to be announced. CBeebies has also found an animation partner for a 52-part animated spin-off set to begin production next year and air across two series from 2027–2029. The War Between will also receive a DVD and Blu-ray release on 27 February. A physical release of the soundtrack album for that series from Lorne Balfe will precede it on 30 January; however, it is already available on digital platforms. On 12 December, the long-awaited and long-requested tenth series soundtrack from Murray Gold was published. Season 21 will receive a "Collection" release on 16 March, featuring a remastered episodes with new special features. Additionally a plethora of new audio and print stories are due for publication in early 2026. Their songs have ended... but their stories never end 🌹 Since the previous issue was published, a number of people related to the Whoniverse have sadly passed away and some who passed away before the previous issue only had their deaths announced recently: 2019 19 April - Roger Minnis, 75, actor (Spearhead from Space, Doctor Who and the Silurians, The Ambassadors of Death, The Claws of Axos) 2020 19 April - Bernard Barnsley, 86 or 87, actor (The Ark, Doctor Who and the Silurians, The Time Monster) 11 September - Neil Sweetmore, 86, dresser (Warriors of the Deep) 2021 5 December - Peggy Sirr, 92, actress (Marco Polo) 2022 21 January - Terence Lodge, 85, actor (The Macra Terror, Carnival of Monsters, Planet of the Spiders) 9 May - Christopher Denham, 83, actor (The Savages) 1 June - Vaughan Collins, 74, actor (The Awakening) 17 November - Desmond McCarthy, production assistant (The Moonbase) Their songs have ended... but their stories never end 🌹 (continued) 2023 30 August - Jenny Doe, 76, director's assistant (Shada) and production associate (Terror of the Vervoids) 2024 10 March - Conrad Monk, 87, actor (The Daleks' Master Plan) 25 July - Brian White, cameraman (regular from 1960s onwards, work includes the Dalek POV at the end of The Daleks - "The Dead Planet") 2025 27 March - Ray Lavender, 85, actor (The Androids of Tara, The Horns of Nimon, The Leisure Hive, Snakedance) 5 April - Peter Noel Cook, 97, actor (The Ambassadors of Death) (death only announced in November) 17 May - Gawn Grainger, 87, actor (The Mark of the Rani) 14 June - Joanna Bacon, 72, actress (The Havoc of Empires, The Man at the End of the Garden) (death only announced in July) 6 July - Ralph Wilton, 86, production assistant (Shada), production manager (Arc of Infinity), and lighting crew (The Crusade) 4 August - Richard Ireson, 78, actor (The Mind Robber, The Krotons) 5 August - Stanley McGeagh, 88, actor (Colony in Space, The Sea Devils) 6 August - Christopher H. Bidmead, 84, script editor (Season 18) and writer (Logopolis, Castrovalva, Frontios) 9 August - Ray Brooks, 86, actor (Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D., The Trouble with Drax) 10 August - Biddy Baxter, 92, producer of Blue Peter (see connection to Doctor Who on the TARDIS Wiki) 23 August - Dave Taylor, 60 or 61, comic book artist (Terrorformer) 3 September - Derek Chafer, 90, actor (The Time Meddler, The Myth Makers, The Invasion, and many more (see TARDIS Wiki for details)) 6 October - John Woodvine, 96, actor (The Armageddon Factor, The Galileo Trap, The Satanic Mill) 13 October - Tony Caunter, 88, actor (The Crusade, Colony in Space, Enlightenment) 14 October - Gregg Palmer, 84, actor (The Tenth Planet, The War Games) 25 October - Nabil Shaban, 72, actor (Vengeance on Varos, Mindwarp, Mission to Magnus, Antidote to Oblivion, Sil and the Devil Seeds of Arodor) Tony Adams, 84, actor (The Green Death) 5 November - Pauline Collins, 85, actress (The Faceless Ones, "Tooth and Claw") November - Steven Ismay, 76[a], actor (The Daemons, Day of the Daleks, The Sea Devils, and many more (see TARDIS Wiki for details)) 19 December - Amanda Brotchie, director ("Lux", "The Well") Notes ^ The reported birth date doesn't match any birth record so the accuracy of this age is uncertain. Contributors: Pokelego999 (talk) Spectritus (talk) TheDoctorWho (talk) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

happy new year! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

20 January is the 100th birthday of David Tudor (see my story) and the 300th birthday of Bach's cantata Meine Seufzer, meine Tränen, BWV 13, if we go by date instead of occasion as he would have thought, so see my story for last Sunday, and celebrate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Zygon is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Zygon has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Doctor Who Award
		For your monstrous work at List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. I know this has been in the works for a while, so it's fantastic to finally see it completed. Here's to getting it done, and somehow mustering the will to finish long after the task becomes a slog. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain thank you so much!!! I'm stoked to finally get this into a complete state. Once a few things are resolved and I can hopefully FL nom this, all I have left are the Dalek and Cyberman articles on this aliens GT. I'm very excited to finally be getting this close after around a year of working on it.

As a side note, thank you for your touch-ups on the article, and congrats on your recent First Doctor serial work! I'm always happy to see more of those getting improved. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I just wanted to let you know that I added short summaries of support and opposition for 1998 South Carolina Amendment 4 so that readers can have an understanding of why people were in favor of opposed to it, and I wanted to tell you so that I wasn't going behind your back with it. Let me know if you think it is ok to keep. Delcoan (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

View the endorsements section to see this. Delcoan (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Delcoan The sections look pretty short and cover a range of opinions, so they honestly look pretty helpful. My only question is why Altman gets more focus than the other opposition senators (I assume because Altman got covered in secondary sources more?),which I bring up in case Altman's opinion was a minority compared to the other opposition senators, but this is admittedly not a huge issue and overall the section reads well. I have no major concerns with this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Yeah, Altman was super outspoken about it. Pretty much more so than any other legislator. "Rep. John Graham Altman, R-Charleston, is one of the most outspoken opponents of amending the constitution." -The Greenville News. So, I could cut the second sentence I included of his, but keep the first and third? It would look like this:

Those in opposition, such as state representative John Graham Altman, who was among the most outspoken opponents of the change, argued that the change was political correctness. Altman believed it to be wrong that the South Carolina legislature would attempt to repeal this provision but avoid removing other archaic clauses that had been ruled unconstitutional, such as women being denied the right to vote, and the requirement that a person be religious to be sworn into public office. He also felt that the ban should be left there "as a lesson for us never to do it again".

The basis of other arguments in opposition included religion, and that different animal species do not breed with each other. Delcoan (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Delcoan I actually missed the first sentence that stated outright he was outspoken; my main gripe was that this was not referenced or cited, but that's clearly an error on my part as it is indeed stated and cited, so I have no issues. I am unopposed to cutting the second but am not strongly for cutting it either; I'll leave it to your judgement about whether it more greatly aids the article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Pokémon Uranium is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Pokémon Prism is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Tomb of the Cybermen, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Pokémon Uranium has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Pokémon Prism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Pokémon Prism has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Midnight Entity, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Midnight Entity is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 11WB -- 11WB (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Midnight Entity has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 11WB -- 11WB (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The Tomb of the Cybermen is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article World War Three (Doctor Who) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Crystal Drawers -- Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in February, including more quality content! - My story today is again about Percy Grainger (FA by Brian Boulton), this time with a video that surprised me. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I randomly passed you by and thought: what a great list of articles you’ve created and improved! A barnstar for all 11,978 of your edits. NorthernWinds (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthernWinds Thank you so much! I appreciate it :) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The Tomb of the Cybermen has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]