Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

message: Squirtle and Pikachu GAN review page should probably be deleted, its a little odd for only 15 edits user to review an comprehensive article like Pikachu. 2001:4455:36D:9100:4525:7C00:7FBC:AB4B (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: These are different users, and the Squirtle GA has already been closed. CMD (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN page 

message: Is there a page where people looking for a QPQ (GA review for a GA review) can seek out one another, if not, should it be created or would that be discouraged? GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In the recent proposal drives (check the talk page archives), QPQ proposals did not come close to passing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Those proposals were for mandated QPQ. It sounds like GMH is looking for a space to discuss voluntary QPQ. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See proposal #4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

text: No, there isn't, and suggestions to create an "official" page of this type were discussed and did not find widespread support, and many people are skeptical that it is a good idea at all. —Kusma (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

text: One of the reasons the GA process had a bad reputation a decade ago was the practice of mutual positive reviews with minimal scrutiny. So any structure for QPQ should have something in place to prevent low quality reviews and quick passes. —Kusma (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  QPQ discussion space 

message: Hello, this is exactly what it says. I passed this article for the Vinland Saga anime series far too quickly (combination of factors, including should've known better), as pointed out by . When I raised the possibility of a GAR, they were hesitant due to how recent the GA was and recommended I bring the subject up here. Thinking back, I was wrong to pick up and review the article as I was then, and a second opinion or re-review of the article is needed. ProtoDrake (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi ProtoDrake, thank you very much for bringing this up here. Regarding the review, Talk:Vinland Saga (TV series)/GA1 is unfortunately insufficient, it does not indicate any review of the article. The article should receive a full review (see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles). Regarding steps, this is recent enough (12 May) that I don't think a GAR is needed, the review pass can simply be reverted. You are the only editor (besides Christiebot) of the review page, so you could tag it as WP:G7 if you still feel it wrong to pick up the review, and do not want to do a full review and would like someone else to instead. (You could also I suppose tag it as G7 and reopen it yourself again, if for some reason you want to both review it yourself and have a technically fresh start.) If you have questions about reviewing, you can always raise it here or discuss with a WP:GAMENTOR. Best, CMD (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opinion: [[Vinland Saga (TV series)|Vinland Saga]] 

message: See this notice on my Talk. I believe this happened because the page was moved (undiscussedly), thus making the nomination page appear not to exist, since it is under the older page title. The page's Talk itself doesn't show it as having failed. In any case, I'd like to just erase the nomination, since no review ever took place, and it's either falsely shown as failed or as awaiting a second opinion (when no first was ever given). Zanahary (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Zanahary, don't you want the article reviewed at GAN? We could "erase the nomination", but that would lose all of its seniority. It was indeed the page move that caused the problem, because while the article moved, the review page is still under the article's original name; I'm not sure whether it's best to see if the article gets moved back, or just move the review page now, and let it get moved back to its original name if the current request to restore the original name prevails. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe let's wait until we see the result of the page move, but I would rather just start again without seniority than have it marked as second opinion needed, which is a designation I imagine scares off any would-be reviewers who aren't very experienced with the process. I think it's enticing enough a topic that the loss of seniority would be alright. Zanahary (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be started again with seniority by simply editing the timestamp in the nominations template.  However, it looks as if the problem is that the page mover agrees to reverse the move but cannot do so for technical reasons?  If so, and there's no disagreement about moving the page back, I can do that -- anyone with the page mover right (which includes all admins and a few others) can do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great, thank you! Zanahary (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -- I think the bot will stop complaining now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much @Mike Christie! I see now on its Talk it is listed as unreviewed, but on the nominations page it says it wants a second opinion. Is it possible to resolve this to indicate that it's awaiting review, not a second opinion? Zanahary (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it's fixed now! A bot update thing, I think. Thanks again! Zanahary (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, BlueMoonset fixed it by resetting it to the next page number without changing the timestamp.  And thanks for removing the move request; that was careless of me -- I should have done that when I did the move. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I adjusted the GA nominee template so that rather than being a "second opinion" request, it's treated as a regular nomination awaiting a reviewer, with no loss of seniority. Sorry, Zanahary, I meant to post that here, but got distracted by some incoming email. I hope the nomination gets picked up soon; there are, unfortunately, several dozen older noms also waiting. I think there's a GAN backlog drive coming in July, so maybe then if not before. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much for your help @BlueMoonset and @Mike Christie! Zanahary (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mysterious auto-failure 

message: Hello everyone. I'm looking for advice since I haven't really encountered this kind of thing before. The review page for Shirt (song) (link here) was created 16 days ago and I was told it would be started by the end of the month. I reminded them a week after that, and they still said they were busy. I gave it another week, and I see they went on a wikibreak on 31 May. Requesting a 2O; should I get a new reviewer? PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 06:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've followed the steps at WP:GAN/I#N4a; the nomination will be returned to the queue shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: Talk:Blackpink/GA1 was not a proper review. The reviewer has made 118 edits and it was rushed. 750h+ 07:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Blackpink/GA1]] 

message: at Wikipedia:Good articles/History, there are a few sections that are worth splitting in my opinion:
* Historical figures - politicians (357 articles)
* Historical figures - other (452 articles)
* North American history (217 articles)
* European history (326 articles)
* Monarchs (365 articles)
* Royalty and nobility (303 articles)
they're all getting difficult to read due to the giant walls of text. what are people's thoughts on how to split? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Could split United States history into a subsection, which would make a small difference although I suspect that subsection would remain in need of splitting sooner rather than later. There are a couple of options for European history, British Isles history seems an obvious one as being easy to define geographically and has quite a few items, splitting on continental Europe geographically is a bit more tricky with anachronisms (eg. what do you do with Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin), although clearly defined regions like Italy might work. There's probably a couple of obvious subgroups for Monarchy, Royalty, and Nobility with 20+ units, perhaps staring with Roman/Byzantine. CMD (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah i think splitting geographically will make the most sense, even with edge cases. splitting off British & US-American items would be a great first step ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  splitting the world history sections