User talk:ImaginesTigers

Year	Location
2020–2021	View history
2022	Archival page
2025	Archival page

Your GA nomination of A Game of Thrones

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Game of Thrones 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 AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your lovely review to Episode 4778. I think it is the loveliest GA review I have ever gotten. Please keep being your kind and amazing self! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind Danilo — thank you :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Million Award for Baldur's Gate 3

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Baldur's Gate 3 (estimated annual readership: 1,200,000) to good article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Reidgreg! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Had a look through Punic Wars. Looks brutal. The article, though – refs in particular – look gorgeous. Great work, something of which to be very proud. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Joshua Commanding the Sun to Stand Still upon Gibeon

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Joshua Commanding the Sun to Stand Still upon Gibeon (1816) John Martin - NGA 2004.64.1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Baldur's Gate 3

On 28 July 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Baldur's Gate 3, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the video game Baldur's Gate 3 won so many awards that its creators collected them in rotating teams to avoid impacting development? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Baldur's Gate 3. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Baldur's Gate 3), 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.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey, I hope you do not mind me writing a little note on here. First of all, thank you so much for your kind review of Episode 5408 - I really appreciate it! I am autistic so I often misinterpret these things, but I got the feeling that you were annoyed at me in the review as your tone was different from the last review - I probably misunderstood and am being paranoid, but I wanted to apologise if I have accidentally annoyed you in any way - it is not my intention, especially after your extremely kind review of my Episode 4778. I hope you are doing well (actually, I hope you are doing amazingly!) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Hello, Danilo! Don't fret – I am very familiar with what you're going through because of ADHD/RSD. I am not annoyed even a little bit. I had a lot going on this weekend, and wanted to get through the review relatively quick, so I just wasn't spending a lot of time policing my tone as I wrote. In the last review, I was often rather critical so I re-wrote sentences over and over again to be as friendly as possible. Sadly I just didn't have the time on this occasion. If something was really wrong, I wouldn't have finished the review – so please don't worry, and I hope you accept my apologies for being a bit grumbly. The article is a fine piece of work, with some minor corrections, and I'd say better than the last one! — ImaginesTigers 10:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for being so kind and understanding - I have extremely bad RSD and it often gets me extremely upset on Wikipedia. I am so sorry that you have been not too well and busy - I hope you are okay? Please do not stress about how friendly you sound with me, as I know that you are a friendly person and I appreciate your kindness! And thank you so much for the kind words - it means a lot! I will review one of your GAs one of these days... DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Epstein client list talk page archive?

Hey there, I was wondering what the rationale was behind this edit: [1] What's archived is simply an unconstructive, notaforum couple of comments that qualify for simple deletion, rather than archiving - in my opinion. Thoughts? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastrophe: It's a very fair point, and you're very right. I've deleted it from the archive and requested the page get deleted as a non-controversial clean-up request. — ImaginesTigers 21:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - thank you kindly! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odyssey / Voß

I had a little look around in German sources. [2] "Was Durchschlagskraft und Dauer ihres Erfolgs anlangt, kann ihr in der deutschen Literatur nur Luthers Bibel und vielleicht die Shakespeare-Übersetzung von Schlegel/Tieck zur Seite gestellt werden." 'In terms of impact and length of success, it [Voß' translation of Homer] can only be compared in German literature to Luther's Bible and perhaps the Shakespeare translation of Schlegel and Tieck.' They cite Gervinus (one of the Göttingen Seven and probably the most important scholar of German language and literature in the 19th century after the Brothers Grimm) who wrote in 1853 in his History of German Literature, "Es gibt außer Luthers Bibel in keiner Sprache und Literatur ein Uebersetzungswerk, das mit diesem zu vergleichen wäre; es gibt in der unseren kein Werk, das einen solchen poetischen Sprachschatz geöffnet hätte." ('With the exception of Luther's Bible, there is no translation in any language or literature comparable to this; in ours [i.e. in German], there is no work that opened up such a treasure of poetic language.') The citation goes to the wrong page I think; it took me forever to track down the original Gervinus. I found a more general work on translations of Homer into German in the 19th century here.

Let me know if you need anything else or more translations. —Kusma (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: This is brilliant and very helpful. I may definitely come back to you for more based on what I find in English-language sources. Thank you! – ImaginesTigers 10:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translations of the Odyssey

Great article! When I started to write Translations of Ulysses I was surprised that there were no such article about the original Ulysses. Now it's here :)

I saved several sources about the Odyssey, that you might want to include (that's up to you, of course, I didn't read much about translations of Homer).

This and this articles mention The first complete translation of the Odyssey into a vernacular language was the German version by Simon Schaidenreisser published in 1537

This one is about similarities between Odyssey and Japanese Yuriwaka.

And this one is about "Homer as portrayed by Catholic and Protestant missionaries in late imperial China"

I'll check what else did I save, but it seems you've already included a lot of my bookmarked sources. Artem.G (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem.G: That's brilliant – I didn't Translations of Ulysses existed. An excellent effort from you on that one; thank you for the labour. I particularly like the overview, although a similar section would doomed for the Odyssey. There are simply too many (and in various states of completion). I've always thought that English translations of Homer would be a terrific choice for my first featured list (perhaps with an accompany good topic of articles) but that seems very remote.

The article definitely isn't done, and I'm grateful for you sending these sources over. I'm a little sceptical that Schaidenreisser's constitutes the earliest vernacular translation—after all, Latin itself was once a vernacular tongue (a concept explored in McElduff's Roman Theories of Translation), but his translation is certainly worth inclusion. I'll work on getting this content into the article today or tomorrow. Thanks again. – ImaginesTigers 09:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I once thought to write an overview of Homer translations, but gave up on that idea after looking for sources :) Are you planning to write a similar article for the Iliad? Artem.G (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem.G: Not in the foreseeable future, I'm afraid. I've only read one translation of the Iliad but I've read several of the Odyssey. My current project is getting Odyssey to featured status, which will a long and concerted effort. Beyond that, my attention span is too divided to say, but (of all the classical topics) I'd be more likely to tackle Homer than Iliad. – ImaginesTigers 14:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity - what's your favorite translation of the Odyssey? Artem.G (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem.G: I can only speak for those I read, and it's hard not to consider the very different contexts in which I encountered them. I read Fitzgerald's in school, and I suppose that's where it all started, so it's hard not to think fondly of it (although it's been a long time). I read most of Pope's (although not front to back) in university as part of a class on Augustan literature. Very beautiful. I was introduced to Lattimore as part of a classical epic in translation course. I can say with more confidence that was the translation I enjoyed least – in translation, faithfulness is a losing game! I got Wilson's shortly after its release (it was heavily promoted)—in some respects Wilson's reminded me of Pope—a genuine contemporary reworking and a product of its time (or "modern times" as she has it). I'd like to read E. V. Rieu's translation someday, but more likely I'll start Wilson's Iliad before 2025 ends. Please accept my apologies for this lousy, evasive answer. – ImaginesTigers 21:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no, thanks, that's a nice and honest answer! I once read the Odyssey in Russian translation; I was at school then and it didn't impress me much. I read excerpts from Pope and Wilson; the article on translations urges me to read at least one version fully :) Artem.G (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, how's your project on the Odin rewrite? when I saw it last time it looked good, but it's probably as hard as the Odyssey rewrite, if not worse. Artem.G (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem.G: A bit tough to get into. Long story short, I disagreed with someone in an FAR, and consequently they came along to Talk:Odin to move goal-posts around. I summarise it here, and there's an ANI thread buried in the archives where the editor got warned. There was some support for the proposal, but the wounded editor canvassed in a cadre of friends before vanishing off the site, so from an effort-value perspective I decided to cut my losses. The rewrite is still sitting in my sandbox and (IMO) is a big improvement even unfinished, with vastly improved scholarship and increased accessibility. I think our Old Norse content is largely doomed long term. – ImaginesTigers 09:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh, that's really unfortunate, the draft looks really good. I mostly write on obscure topics almost nobody ever edit, so I mostly avoided content conflict here. Artem.G (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, ImaginesTigers. You have new messages at SandyGeorgia's talk page.
Message added 07:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Gazette, Issue 1

Issue 1, 8 August 2025

Ongoing discussions

News

Good article review pledges have been established;
Spot checking references will remain a requirement for GAN reviews
The next Backlog Drive will be in October 2025. After that, they will be organised every February, June, and October.

Current statistics

Number of GAs: 42,304
Number of nominations: 814
GAs for reassessment: 89

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hey, I hope you are doing well and having a lovely Sunday. I wanted to please ask for some advice as you work in DYK. I recently wrote Episode 7116, which I worked hard on, and today it achieved GA status, which again I worked hard on. After it was passed, I nominated it for DYK, but for some reason it was not working, so I had to do it manually here (Template:Did you know nominations/Episode 7116 (1)). I then realised that it was because 10 minutes before I submitted, another user submitted it for DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Episode 7116). Whilst I am aware that others can nominate other articles for DYK, this has quite upset me as the author did not provide attribution that I created it/brought it to GA article and their template says that they created it, which is not true. Furthermore, the source cited was an unreliable one (IMBD) and my nomination had 4 suggested hooks and feedback from previous DYKs implemented, and I feel quite upset having put in the hard work and then only missing it for 10 minutes. I hence wanted to ask for your advice on the situation - do you think I should ask the user to perhaps consider withdrawing it and offer to help them with another nomination, or would that be unkind? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that nominating on behalf of somebody else is allowed, but that is best practice to ask first, precisely to avoid situations like this. Usually I'd suggest a post at WT:DYK, but in the first instance I'll ping someone who knows the area better than me – AirshipJungleman29, would you kindly offer some advice to Danilo? – ImaginesTigers 15:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating other people’s articles is fine. Failing to provide proper attribution is not. FaroeFO, to resolve this in the simplest way, please could you request WP:G7 deletion of your nomination? In the future, please make sure to correctly fill out the DYK nomination page so the original author is credited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I'm actually sorry for not crediting you for my nomination. I was unaware of someone creating the nomination with the same article, I would like to request deletion for my nomination. Thank you!

FaroeFO (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FaroeFO, thank you. @DaniloDaysOfOurLives, I have deleted FaroeFO's nomination and moved yours to the standard title. Let me know if you need anything else done from an admin in this context. —Kusma (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all so much for this! It really means so much DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Silverchair and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comments, and at Wikipedia talk:Consistency in article titles on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 13:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of A Game of Thrones is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article A Game of Thrones 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 AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More meta

Re: "I spent over an hour writing an assessment of conduct issues and then realised, what on earth am I doing." and @Adam Cuerden, you know the the right venue for a comment like this is not FAR." and "You aren't stuck in traffic; you are traffic."

I have long advocated that FAC and FAR should be able to police themselves, because running off to ANI could lead to stifling of critique and criticism that are necessary parts of the processes. That stance has meant I have had to sit by for many egregious personal attacks over the years -- although none quite so bad as the one redacted on this FAR -- or hope that someone else would address them. In this case, several editors have tried. WP:AE is broken in the GENSEX area, with little likelihood that the Arbcase will fix that, because the same factors that cause the brokenness have inhibited evidence submissions in the arbcase. So I cling to the idea still that FAC and FAR will do better to police themselves.

Since my early editing days, I've watchlisted JKR among many other BLP FAs, but got more deeply involved in the 2021 to 2022 FAR because a) I was active on every FAR, and checking notifications and doing the bookkeeping, and b) I saw FAR was being misused. I don't care so much about what happens to any given FA as I do about the integrity and functioning of FAR.

On this FAR, you and Vanamonde93 have now worked through a misunderstanding. Others are finally hatting or addressing toxicity, or pushing back on emotive overstatements. Victoria has poked back in (that's always a good sign of which way things are trending). I think the process now has a chance to work as intended, in spite of a bigger misstart than the 2022 FAR.

Re, your assessment, is there more you want me to know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandy. Nice to hear from you. I saw everyone's responses yesterday but wanted to wait before responding. Now that you are here I can just tell you what I'm thinking instead of making a big post there.

On the interpersonal/conduct baggage

I'm hatting this because, honestly, it just doesn't matter. We want to move forward. I respect your perspective but I stand by what I said about traffic. We all have a responsibility to create and maintain a collegial, collaborative atmosphere. I commend your early efforts at collaborating, even when you disagreed. But the tone of the FAR took a turn got off on the wrong foot and got worse after that. The absence of collegiality affected editors' perceptions of one another – that, in turn, changed perceptions of whether feedback was actionable. I strove to be honest, empathetic, and show respect to everyone. Everyone here deserves it for something; everyone wants to improve the article. Not only does that approach work, it is vital on divisive culture war issues. We all have different perspectives, and frankly that's only beneficial if we're striving to create genuinely neutral content.

There was another comment on the new, malformed RFC yesterday that indicated there may be more receptiveness towards restructuring the biography. Victoria said something similar. I truly believe this would mitigate many concerns about neutrality, and be easier to manage long-term. As you say, I think sourcing is the first bit*.

In terms of things to know, there is one. I disagree with Victoria's assessment as it relates to comprehensiveness, but I think the detail of how we would fix the article makes that difference an academic one, so I don't feel compelled to respond to Victoria with my own thoughts. To elaborate:

As Vanamonde93 said, we don't outline Rowling's recent activity (her 'twitter addict' era). I think this fails to place her in complete context.
Rowling's increasing involvement with domestic politics is important, and these primarily relate to her positions on trans issues. The Spectator recently said Rowling will forever be popularly understood as the reason for Sturgeon's resignation.

I'd say our biographical groupings feed into all of this. We shouldn't keep the trans material in "Views" (no wonder it's so divisive!), but we shouldn't just simply add it in other places—that will end up being messy. In light of how divisive she now is, we need an article structure that acknowledges that. Ultimately I just want to work on the literary bits but that's obviously not where the complaints come from. It's unavoidable that I will have to give my 2p.

*One last thing, and this is a question particularly for you – it would be good to understand if we substantively disagree on this. We can't exclude all newspaper sourcing. We should limit their usage, where possible, to statements of fact. This means we can briefly summarise mention of things for comprehensiveness, but avoid the pitfalls of outlining any and all of Rowling's positions, which will necessarily require a range of DUEWEIGHT alternate positions (and inevitably cause fights). If we limit accounts to pure statements of fact, we can avoid providing constant DUEWEIGHT. A simple example of this would be stating that Rowling has been in disputes via Twitter with X, Y, Z figures. No need to provide detail. It's only important, at a high level, to an overview of this recent phase.

Please let me know what you think. – ImaginesTigers 13:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure we agree on everything -- or at least everything you've written here about sourcing and structure and recent events. In the last FAR, we also recognized we couldn't exclude all newspaper sourcing, but we did work to make sure that what we did use was broadly reported and at least vaguely supported by what was covered, or hinted at, in scholarly sources (not the random sort of day-to-day NOTNEWS stuff that shows up only in pinknews -- like the big chunk just deleted today). I would call any content reported only in "biased" sources as likely UNDUE -- but not exclude any content that just hasn't had time to be analyzed by scholarly or secondary sources. There has been on talk unnecessary elimination of news sources, when they mention issues broadly covered. If you set out the standards early on, and have a discussion about them (that is what I mean by sources first), others might find they agree. And I do think that if you just dig in, lead by example, editors who have been mostly emoting (eg, ranting and venting on talk) will likely get on board and fall into line. And more of the FAR regulars will start chiming in if they see they won't end up at WP:AE or in an arbcase (it was quite chilling when editors put up lists and Tamzin stated at AE that editors weighing in on the topics should be part of an arbcase, so everyone clammed up -- one of the best reasons for "hold in FAR" is that you may see a return of the non-GENSEX editors once the arbcase closes, particularly if they address the toxicity -- although I doubt they will). Because of the stuff that has been aimed at me, I probably shouldn't help in actual content, but I'm always willing to help with MOS-y stuff like keeping citations consistent. Working in sandbox might not work in a case as complex as this, but an outline of how you want to proceed and where you see the structure ending up might be a start. But then ... taking an organizational lead could land you being charged with ownership or gate-keeping :) You have to have a thick skin! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My time is very limited during the week but I have some today. I suppose I can try. If this goes nowhere, I would be very disappointed—but putting in the work is better than doing nothing for 3 months and declaring "delist" anyway. I do see some reason to be optimistic. I will try to create the positive atmosphere I keep requesting of others. To think I was about to take a wikibreak... I'll start putting a proposed structure together in my sandbox but it might take a couple days for it to be something I'm happy with– ImaginesTigers 14:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to ruin your Wikibreak :) :) Kudos on you for trying -- it's all we can do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just coming back on something you said Sandy: Because of the stuff that has been aimed at me, I probably shouldn't help in actual content, but I'm always willing to help with MOS-y stuff like keeping citations consistent [...] taking an organizational lead could land you being charged with ownership or gate-keeping. A couple things. I want to maximise editor satisfaction and believe Wikipedia's policies enable that. I don't think ownership/gatekeeping concerns are reasonable to express without evidence, and clear interest in compromise makes it a dud allegation IMO. It isn't acceptable for "stuff" to be aimed at anyone. This is where my disagreement about self-policing comes in: Wikipedia has narrow editing restrictions (i.e., page bans) for this reason. If I treat others right, I have to trust the wider community to lift road blocks. If editorial conduct can consistently obstruct progress, the article isn't stable, and that's a different issue. I don't want to, obviously it sucks, but I'll make a concise ANI thread if other options (like a friendly/understanding Talk post) fail. – ImaginesTigers 18:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to avoid commenting for now: I have always been a Pollyanna, and sometimes I try too hard to reach people, type too much, and hope too long ... but hope is what sustains me in all areas of life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this here to not muck up Sandbox. Re "I'm going to make my own soon, hoping that might draw some others to roll up their sleeves with us", I am skeptical that the regular FAR crowd can be enticed back now -- it may be too late -- but you may be able to work some magic there. The fallout from a very poorly framed arbcase, which left out worst offenders, targeted anyone who weighed in at AE, and might be headed towards sanctioning those who most respect sources, while many editors refrained from adding evidence so as not to be sucked down that hole -- plus the absence of a collaborative spirit at the JKR FAR -- could mean the ten-foot-pole applies now. Pollyanna hopes you can change that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. Always tough to hear an account of process failing. I need to assume the best of every FAR participant – chiefly, that those delist votes represent a sincere belief that no improvement can happen (and there's a lot now). I want to weigh in that I'm going to try. Secondly, I think my assessment differs from, say, yours and Victoria's and Vanamonde93's because I think the article needs considerable work to be upgraded. That's a tension that will probably need resolved at Talk (i.e., is there a problem; how do we fix it). If I can't convince anyone I'm right, and the Talk continues to be only about labels, I need to make clear why I support delisting. I'm optimistic that work could continue if that happened, probably with less eyes on the article. Maybe. Either way, I'm gonna try my best to get more people on board, to make it easier to build consensus when it hits Talk. If the idea provokes indifference or hostility, I probably need a new topic. – ImaginesTigers 17:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the !votes that are there that concern me; it's the absence of the non-GENSEX FAR regulars, who all weighed in on the last FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work with any collaborators we can get. At the end of this (if we get there), if only editors who declared "hold" change their votes to "keep", I'll be disappointed in myself. If there are more editors you want to weigh in, tell them (share the sandbox; share the new FAR post). They don't need to dive into the deep end to give their perspective. Let's cast a wide net. It's going to be painful, probably stressful, but you convinced me into reckless hope—let's give it a shot. We need editors with a broad spectrum of views. With that, we can find out what matters to them. If sources consistently mention it, we find a direct, relevant counterweight opinion to satisfy DUE. Represent any rebuttals (where possible). This seems more possible to me each passing day, honestly. – ImaginesTigers 21:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the source analysis. That's an easy item where I need help, for example. The source list is currently on my sandbox4 talk. I want sandbox4 to be structured (maybe a table), with fields useful for source analysis. Stuff like: 1) Is Rowling the primary topic? 2) What about Rowling is discussed? 3) If writing, what aspect does it explore? 4) If social issues, does it characterise her? 5) If social issues, which views of hers does it outline? This sort of stuff will help us out a lot. Frankly, even this is too simple (I've found one book with several chapters about the films where her involvement is discussed in detail, for example. That breaks under this!) – ImaginesTigers 21:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless hope ahoy!! Three caregivers cancelled on me -- I may have some free time on the weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that; I'll always be thankful for any time you donate given all that's going on. I might post a little to-do somewhere, maybe on sandbox3; people definitely have strong views and I'm optimistic we can channel that productively. – ImaginesTigers 21:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Back pain on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of A Game of Thrones has passed

Your good article nomination of the article A Game of Thrones 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 AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Gazette, Issue 2

Issue 2, 22 August 2025

Ongoing discussions

News

No news for today!

Current statistics

Number of GAs: 42,352 (+48)
Number of nominations: 812 (–2)
GAs for reassessment: 61 (–28)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Half Million Award for Game of Thrones

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring A Game of Thrones (estimated annual readership: 535,000) to good article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 09:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brummitt

Just a note to let you know that Brummitt is an excellent find. I've skimmed it all and will now go through with a closer reading, but it's really impressive. I like the framing of branding, and there are bits and piece of biography strewn throughout. So, thanks. You're doing a great job. Victoria (tk) 15:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Victoria. Just taking some much-needed time to deal with some personal issues at the moment. I'm going to do a little work on the sandbox today and tomorrow but likely won't pick up full steam again until Tuesday. Brummitt is really great. – ImaginesTigers 10:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry to see your post to the FAR, but as someone who should have been on a years' long wikibreak understand completely. Hang on to the work in the sandboxes; you might come back at some point and be willing to engage again. In the meantime I might fill in some of little side articles (i.e I'm interested that Fantastic Beasts (written in 2001)) became the tentpole for the later films, per Brummitt. Getting some of that info into the daughter articles might (?) help at some point. That said, keyboarding is very difficult, so I'll probably end up doing nothing. You've done a stellar job here. Sending good thoughts your way and hoping that all is well in real life. Victoria (tk) 20:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Translations of the Odyssey

On 7 September 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Translations of the Odyssey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first Portuguese translation of Homer's Odyssey was reportedly "harder to read than the [original] texts"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Translations of the Odyssey. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Translations of the Odyssey), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cite Unseen September 2025 updates

Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. We are excited to share details about a big update we just deployed. With grant support from Wikimedia CH, we've added several new features, including a citation filtering dashboard, settings dialog, support for localization, and the ability to easily suggest domain categorizations. Cite Unseen now also lives on Meta Wiki, as part of our effort to serve all Wikimedia projects. Our source lists are now also on Meta-Wiki, where they can be collaboratively edited by the community.

Please see our newsletter on Meta-Wiki for full details. If you have feature ideas, notice any issues with our new updates, or have any questions, please get in touch via our project talk page. Thank you!

From SuperHamster and SuperGrey, 05:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent via global message delivery. You received this message as you've been identified as a user of Cite Unseen. If you are not a Cite Unseen user, or otherwise don't want to receive updates in the future, you can remove yourself from our mailing list here.

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi ImaginesTigers. Thank you for your work on Iberian exception. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 00:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 22:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bee Gees on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 02:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rolie Polie Olie on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 05:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]