This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

List of television series with bisexual characters, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

» Shadowowl | talk 16:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The article Clear Rivers you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Clear Rivers for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Numerounovedant -- Numerounovedant (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I was hoping if you could find some spare time would mind reviewing Loev for GA? Thanks either way. Also, not sure what's wrong the bot, must be a glitch. NumerounovedantTalk 12:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I am interested in reviewing the article but I'd like to see the movie first. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Can't seem to find the movie anywhere. :/ Oh whale, I guess if I do review it would be without having watched the movie. I'm just not sure when I'll have the time. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's on Netflix if you want to watch it. And for the review, I think I can wait. NumerounovedantTalk 14:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jamie Clayton as Nomi Marks.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Nikthestunned 12:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! I hope that everything is going well for you. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide any feedback/commentary on my current FAC. I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I completely understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at this nomination. Thank you either. Great work with your current projects; have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you Aoba, things are going OK, kinda tired but I'll get over it. I'm not sure when but I'd like to help out with your nomination so I'm gonna keep that in mind. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. It will be up there for a while as I only recently put it up for FAC. I am glad things are going well for you, and I always feel tired now lol. Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Good job promoting Boogeyman 2 for the much-coveted FA status! (I guess that user, Paleface Jack, was sorry he opposed its potential, lol.) I've had the article's nomination page on my watchlist to keep tabs on whether it will succeed or not; and then it did, and for that I give you kudos. Anyhow, I was wondering if you could provide comments on my FAC entry here? It's completely fine if you don't want to. I just thought it'd be a nice thing to do to celebrate. ;) Again, congrats. Bluesphere 11:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bluesphere: I know right XD. Though I have no hard feelings against him, I understand where he's coming from. And once again, thank you for the support; I'll take a look at The Getaway as soon as I am able. Also, I'd like to apologize for my rudeness regarding Final Destination 3's overall reception, it's my favorite movie so I always go on defense mode when people question something about the article. But from all the articles I have seen it doesn't seem like the lead section needs a citation for the film's reception. The Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores pretty much show how a movie did critically, with the latter telling us if the reception was positive, negative etc. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I hold no malice against the user, either; I believe his comment was done in good faith. Not everyone here has the same perspective on what constitutes a GA/FA article. No apologies necessary about my revision on the FD3 article. Speaking of which, you're absolutely right about not adding citations in the lead. Besides, they are sourced elsewhere in the article. But don't take my word for it, have a look at WP:LEADCITE when in doubt.

Thanks for taking interest with my FAC, I look forward to your thoughts about it. All the best, Bluesphere 11:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Just chiming in as well to say great job on getting Boogeyman 2 (!), a direct-to-video film into a featured article! I'm very impressed! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you :D. That's actually part of the reason why I was so interested in seeing this article through. I hadn't come across a single DTV film that was a FA; I'm not sure if another one even exists. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. Not even in the olden days of wikipedia when it was a lot more loose to get a featured article going. There were some good articles for low popularity direct-to-television films, such as Maneater and the Subspecies film series. Outside that though, nothing to this level! Again, great work! Good luck with the Final Destination 3' FA! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Man, you're awesome !!!! I love your contributions to the Final Destination articles. ❤❤❤ OMG, I'm your fan !!!!! I LOVE YOU !!! Continue editing.... ❤❤❤❤❤ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.9.126.237 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thank you. :D I really appreciate the support. <3 And don't worry, improving the Final Destination articles is one of my "Wikipedia goals". PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey PanagiotisZois, if you find some spare time, would you mind taking a look at my current FAC. Thanks either way. (I believe this is the more appropriate place for the request.) NumerounovedantTalk 08:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

On 9 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Knock Out (Transformers: Prime), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite his role as a medic to the Decepticons, the character of Knock Out in Transformers: Prime was created as a foil to Bumblebee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Knock Out (Transformers: Prime). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! I hope that everything is going well for you. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide any feedback/commentary on my current FAC. I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I completely understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at this nomination. Thank you either way. Good luck with your current projects; have a wonderful rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey man, how 'bout I ask for your comments on my FAC, too? As always, no problem if busy. Slightlymad (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: Goddamn, that's a well written article. I'll try to post comments in the next few days. Meanwhile may I ask for help with my FAN? I just need a source review. One has already been performed but not in regards to reliability. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Already did, the Bluesphere guy was me. Slightlymad (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: Oh I know, I saw the redirect. I meant if you can perform a review on the article's sources for reliability. Though I understand if you can't. There are quite a few of them. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a strong grasp in performing a source review. But if this keeps you from giving comments on my FAC, then I would understand. Slightlymad (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I see your FAC has now been source reviewed by a horror-meister editor. I have a proposition to make: you give your thoughts on my FAC thru link above, and I guarantee you I would give comments on whatever your next project is, be it a FLC or FAC. Slightlymad (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: Don't worry, you not being able to perform a source review will not keep me from reviewing On the Job. And while a QPQ isn't necessary, I appreciate the offer. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I meant what I said. After I'm done with my FAR, I won't be having that much projects and this will give me ample time to collaborate with others. SLIGHTLY^mad 16:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Regina Hall.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, PanagiotisZois. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Black Siren".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I was sorry to see you deciding to withdraw your FAC; I was actually planning to do a prose review in the next couple of days, though that's not why I'm posting here. I've been on the receiving end of some difficult reviews at FAC, and I can certainly understand your frustration. I wrote an essay a long time ago about stressing out at FAC; not sure if you'll find it relevant, but I hope so. The point of the reviews is to improve the article, after all, and it's really not a matter of jumping through hoops to get a star on the article; it's about getting everyone to agree that the article is as good as it can be. That usually requires some two-way education -- the reviewer has to learn about the nature of the sources, or the details in the article, before they can comment; the nominator has to understand the reviewer's viewpoint.

I hope you reconsider your decision on this FAC, or nominate it again at a later date. If you can maintain your equilibrium at FAC, I really believe you'll find most articles come out the better for the process. Either way, I wish you all the best with your editing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I did read your essay and I do agree with you on some things. Whenever I try to write an article I think of it as one of my college essays. We have the prologue, main body and epilogue. And I only try to focus on articles that allign with my interests. Final Destination 3 is my favorite horror movie so I highly enjoyed improving its article as it allowed me to learn lots of things about the film. But even if I were to suddenly change my mind I keep asking myself if it's really worth trying to make changes based on Ealdyth's source review. I mean, she asked what made Den of Geek a high reliable source, told her that the author James Berardinelli is a Rotten tomatoes approved critic and she basically said that it's not good enough. If Rotten Tomatoes isn't good enough for her I just don't see the point in trying to convince her in the reliability of the sources. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Up to you, of course, but I can tell you from years of seeing Ealdgyth's work at FAC that her comments don't mean she has an entrenched position; she'll change her mind if you provide information that ought to change her mind. (I should say I haven't looked at these sources and have no opinion on them myself.) If you have a strong argument that something is reliable, and you make it, she'll be fair about it. If you don't convince her, but you feel strongly that it's correct, you can leave the source in and the coordinators will judge consensus. Generally I've found if I can't convince someone after several tries, it's because it's a borderline case.

All I'm really trying to say is that Ealdgyth is an extremely honest and knowledgeable source reviewer who genuinely wants what's best for the article. If you were to engage with her, and reach a consensus on the sources, I think the article would be the better for it, and that's what we all want. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! I am sorry about your frustration with the Final Destination 3 FAC as I could tell that you have put a lot of work in that particular article. Fortunately, you have received a lot of feedback so hopefully it will one day become an FA in the future. I will wondering if you could possible provide some feedback on my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or if it falls outside of your interests. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day, and good luck with your current and future projects. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Final Destination: Dead Reckoning, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Basic Instinct instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

There's no reason to create a separate page for this.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of accolades received by Basic Instinct and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy: OK, I understand, but I never submitted the article through the creation process. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello! PanagiotisZois, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello again; I hope that everything is going well for you. I would greatly appreciate any help for my current FAC if possible. Either way, good luck with your current projects both on here and in real life! Aoba47 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: My semester started again so I'm not sure when but I'll try to help as soon as possible. I do however have something that may interest you. I was looking at the Eve episode list and saw most of the episodes lack viership ratings. I tried to find any other shows that aired on the same dates and got lucky with season 3. Its episodes aired on the same day as Smallville's fifth season, which has the ratings for each episode. The bad news is, the references are all dead. Good news is, they appear to have been archived on archive.is. Here's the reference for episode 3x03. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the reference and your help. I will look into it in the future. Good luck with your semester, and I hope things go well with it! Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Boogeyman 2 article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 20 October 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 20, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of Nitro+chiral video games, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

There are some problems with these edits:

• "Described" doesn't take "to be" in English, it's followed by "as".
• No one says "hospital, Linda Vista Community Hospital", or "school, Smith Middle School", etc. if they're alert, and we try to avoid unnecessary repetition at FAC.
• How is the reader going to interpret "However, her fears become a reality"? Wouldn't they naturally assume that the monster becomes real? (And according to the plot section, it does become real, as a possessing spirit.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dank:e schön Thank you for bringing these points to my attention Dank. I corrected the mistakes. To be honest, I noticed quite a few problems with the summary and am kind of surprised nobody pointed them out during the review. Irregardless, once again, thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Bitte schön. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
161		Leo Wyatt (talk)	Add sources
61		Lori Rom (talk)	Add sources
306		Soundwave (Transformers) (talk)	Add sources
8		Transformers: Generation 2 (comics) (talk)	Add sources
130		Ted King (actor) (talk)	Add sources
7		Transformers: Dark of the Moon: The Junior Novel (talk)	Add sources
470		Viz Media (talk)	Cleanup
19		Transformers: Cyber Missions (talk)	Cleanup
1,773		Optimus Prime (talk)	Cleanup
87		All Hell Breaks Loose (Charmed) (talk)	Expand
56		Bulkhead (Transformers) (talk)	Expand
5		The Transformers: Primacy (talk)	Expand
1,038		Megatron (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
32		Waspinator (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
26		Transformers: Alternators (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
52		Loki's Wager (talk)	Merge
1,143		The Lego Movie (franchise) (talk)	Merge
27		Butch Cat (Tom and Jerry) (talk)	Merge
64		Ravage (Transformers) (talk)	Wikify
444		Grimlock (talk)	Wikify
576		Ryan Merriman (talk)	Wikify
2		Locations in Transformers: Prime (talk)	Orphan
2		Aero Pictorial (talk)	Orphan
2		Alurnus ornatus (talk)	Orphan
42		Rebecca Balding (talk)	Stub
36		HasCon (talk)	Stub
14		Transformers: The Covenant of Primus (talk)	Stub
15		Woman of Fire '82 (talk)	Stub
30		Woman of Fire (talk)	Stub
59		Eoudong (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Final Destination 3

Thank you for quality articles about films such as Boogeyman 2 and Final Destination 3, including background such as List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2015 TV series) episodes and characters such as Knock Out (Transformers: Prime), - Panagiotis, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)