User talk:Crestfalling

Welcome to my talk page!

If you have a question about a semi-automated edit I made, please check User:Crestfalling/Notices, as I typically try to explain any changes that aren't obvious.

I try to keep discussions contained to one page, so if you message me elsewhere, please notify me somehow. If I don't reply to a talk page message and I've been editing in the meantime, please ping me again - I'll never intentionally ignore a message, but I might have forgotten to respond.

I am always open to discussing and explaining my edits, sharing notes and research, and giving feedback on articles. Have fun, and thanks for contributing to this project.

Start a new talk topic

Question for Natalie link changes

Hello, I noticed you've been changing all links to Natalie (website) to specific editorial departments. I am curious if this really is necessary since Comic Natalie and Music Natalie do not have their own articles, and they both redirect to Natalie (website) anyway. lullabying (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi. The main reason I'm making the change is to conform with how reliable sources treat the site, since they virtually always cite the individual Natalie websites rather than citing Natalie directly (examples in Special:Permalink/1355957425). Additionally, this also improves consistency: Citoid, the tool used by Mediawiki's referencing software, automatically retrieves the metadata given by the websites when filling out citation parameters, and that metadata for Natalie websites includes the full name for the website= parameter. Using a site's own provided English-language title is, in most cases, preferable since a website is being cited as a published work (see MOS:ITALICWEBSITE for this).

While they both redirect to Natalie (website), it affects how they display to readers and editors, which is one of the main purposes of citation templates. The wikilinks are secondary (usually I leave them alone: if it's already wikilinked, I keep it that way, and otherwise I don't actively link unlinked parameters). Additionally, if Comic Natalie, for example, ever receives enough significant coverage to merit its own article (I'm actually quite sure it has enough, but I haven't gotten around to drafting it yet), then the links will have to be disambiguated anyway. That being said, if you think the edits to [[Natalie (website)|Natalie]] links aren't necessary, I'll pause them for the time being until there's greater consensus, and focus my efforts on ensuring accurate transliteration of parameters that are already there (e.g. コミックナタリ-> Comic Natalie). I hope this helps, and thank you for the inquiry. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 04:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to wait on it until they've actually been drafted. Comic Natalie doesn't even redirect to a section on the main Natalie (website) article, so it doesn't really make much of a difference for now. lullabying (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Got it, I understand that perspective. Just as a point of clarification, do you think it would be fine to convert parameters such as "website=コミックナタリー" (which is just Komikku Natarī) to "website=Comic Natalie"? Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 05:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Better revert your edits as it seems a WP:COSMETICBOT on articles that clearly WP:NOTBROKEN and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also a violation MOS:NOPIPE imo. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←} 14:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the inquiry, but I'd like to gently point out that this may not be a correct interpretation of the policies and guidelines. WP:COSMETICBOT notes that "changes considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia", and the rendering of links from Natalie -> Comic Natalie is a clearly visible change. Neither WP:NOTBROKEN or MOS:NOPIPE are relevant, since they both discourage changing a redirect to a piped link, whereas I'm changing a piped link to a more specific redirect. In fact, WP:NOTBROKEN notes that linking to a more specific redirect may be preferable for accuracy, while MOS:NOPIPE notes that a redirected term is preferable over a piped one when it is accurately used, so they're actually saying the opposite.

WP:AINTBROKE is an essay, and the last sentence is "On the other hand, if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it." Linking to individual Natalie websites is common practice and in line with convention for a published work's title, which a website is per WP:ITALICWEBCITE. You're of course free to revert for an individual article, but I think it's a bit much to revert en masse, especially given almost 4000 articles use this convention for Comic Natalie alone, and less than 1/5th of those are from my edits.

Of course, I'm not perfect and I'll readily admit to having made mistakes on occasion, so if you can clearly explain how policies and guidelines apply here, I'm open to hear them. For now, I'll simply start a discussion. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 16:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. One major detail to consider is that all of these individual Natalie websites are under the parent domain: 'natalie.mu', right? The specific department (Comic, Eiga, etc.) is already completely transparent to the reader and metadata scrapers via the URL parameter. Using mass automated tools to change Natalie to a specific redirect doesn't add any new functional information that the URL hasn't already provided. It simply creates immense watchlist clutter for zero technical gain. I am completely fine with using this style for new articles, but mass-sweeping existing, perfectly functional citations across thousands of pages (which you already did) is unnecessary. And yes, it is too much to revert en masse. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←} 18:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Although they share the parent domain, reliable English-language sources generally treat them as separate websites because they share no relation other than being owned by the same company; additionally, for people using mobile devices, which constitute most of Wikipedia's readers, the URL isn't transparent in citations and it's cumbersome to navigate to a new page to check it. Furthermore, while any citation with a valid URL is functional, some are more informative than others, and WP:CITE encourages improving its reader-facing aspects when possible. Finally, MOS:NOTBROKEN also notes that specific redirects are useful because they indicate an article is wanted, which is the main purpose of a {{R from possibilities}}.

I apologize for the watchlist clutter; I try and work in long sessions so that people don't have to clear watchlists multiple times. The problem is that many of the Natalie citation styles are on older pages, and editors are gradually standardizing them manually, which can easily take 30 seconds or more on articles with multiple Natalie citations. You can imagine how much time this takes across thousands of articles. As such, I figured I would spend a few hours on my day off to take care of things once and for all, and save time for other editors in the future. That being said, if you'd prefer I not do this, I completely understand and I'm fine with striking the task for now. I hope this helps clarify things. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 18:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for finishing reviewing a GAN

I would like to thank you for finishing reviewing Fuuto PI: The Portrait of Kamen Rider Skull. I had started to review the GAN, but I got busy. I appreciate you covering for me. Keep up the good work. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you very much. Kamakou also helped with the GAN, and I'm grateful that she and I were able to finish the review since the article was in great shape. Glad to see you're back :) Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 03:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

DYK for The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady

On 31 May 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a narrative element in The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady was described as "explicitly [...] about class conflict"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady), 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 nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Re: Natalie

I might not be online everyday recently, but don't know if I could still reply to the comment made on May 25 – whether your talk page or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Should citations to Natalie sites use Natalie or a more specific one like Comic Natalie? – so I end up discussing here on your talk page.

To be honest, Lullabying was correct that the sub-sites are not notable. As for romanization, we should always follow what is presented in English-language sources (e.g. コミックナタリー = Comic Natalie).

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 23:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, I appreciate it any time. As far as I am aware, citation parameters are included independent of notability (for example, Crunchyroll News is the standard wikilink despite not being notable in and of itself). On a general basis, accurate information, including naming, is included where possible per WP:CITEHOW; in addition, per WP:NOTBROKEN, more specific redirects should be used over piped links when possible. That being said, I respect the compromise reached on the talk page and will stick to changes for newer articles only. Thanks for the guidance on romanization as well. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 23:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Cyrene (Honkai: Star Rail)

Hello, you have been paired at good article review circles to review Cyrene (Honkai: Star Rail). At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#91.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Crestfalling, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

FA review of Well-being

Hello Crestfalling, I'm sorry that it didn't work out with your recent FA nomination of The Executioner and Her Way of Life. I was wondering whether you may be interested in reviewing the article Well-being at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Well-being/archive1 since the article hasn't received enough reviews so far. Thank you for taking a look and please feel under no obligation if now is not a good time. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for the kind words. Right now, I think that I'd be a bit too busy to give this topic the depth of review that it deserves. That being said, it looks to be an excellently written article and I'd regret to see it archived; if a coordinator comment indicates that it is at risk of archival, please ping me and I will try to leave some feedback. Good luck with your nomination and thanks for all your work on Wikipedia's most fundamental articles. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 01:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! There are still a few review comments trickling in, so let's see if it works out on its own. I'll ping you if the coordinators get impatient. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems that time is slowly running out for the nomination. I would be interested in your feedback if you have the time. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

May drive bling

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Crestfalling for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2026 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! In solidarity, Miniapolis 00:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of The Moon on a Rainy Night has passed

Your good article nomination of the article The Moon on a Rainy Night 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A.Cython -- A.Cython (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Yugoslav corn scandal

Hello, you have been paired at good article review circles to review Yugoslav corn scandal. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#95.

A.Cython(talk) 01:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition of Crestfalling for accumulating at least 25 points in the May 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 14884 articles during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 15:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from WhiteObelisk on User:WhiteObelisk/sandbox (21:03, 15 June 2026)

Hi! I've finished polishing my draft for my first page about the Belarusian post-punk band Nürnberg in my sandbox. I believe I've sorted my references and set it up with British English formatting. Since you're my mentor, I'd really appreciate it if you could give it a quick look to see if I have done everything correctly for it to be made public. Thank you so much! --WhiteObelisk (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! At a glance, here's what I see:

• Make sure all statements have a citation after them - the "tour of Mexico" as well as the discography need to be referenced.
• Check that all sources used are reliable. According to Wikipedia's reliable source list and record charts source list, SoundGuardian and last.fm may not be reliable, so they should be replaced with a different source if possible. I'm not sure of the rest of the sources, since I'm not too familiar with this topic area, but make sure that they follow Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines.
• Try to find as many sources as possible to establish that the band meets requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; the criteria that an article needs to meet before being published are outlined on the linked page. The Tuzin.FM and Post-punk.com sources are quite good, but an additional source covering the band in-depth would be helpful since two sources is the technical minimum for inclusion.

The first and second points should be addressed before publishing, while the third one is more of a recommendation. I hope this helps, and please feel free to reach out with any further questions. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 01:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the feedback! I have gone through the draft again:

​Citations & Discography: I have added the band's official English website and a 34mag archive source to fully reference the discography table and the early history/tours.

​Sources: I removed Last.fm and replaced it with an article from Post-Punk.com. I also removed SoundGuardian entirely since the other Tuzin.FM source already verifies those tour details.

​Notability: I've used the 34mag and the Post-Punk.com article to give the draft more robust, in-depth secondary coverage.

​I also removed the sentence about using the Belarusian Latin alphabet as I couldn't find a concrete source at this point and wanted to keep everything strictly verifiable. I'd love it if you could take another look whenever you have a moment! Thanks again for your guidance. WhiteObelisk (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to help. I made a minor edit to the draft to fix formatting; other than that, it definitely looks to be in better shape now, and I don't see any obvious sourcing issues (which are the most important when it comes to a new article).

As a final step, I would suggest submitting it to Wikipedia's Articles for Creation process, which allows it to be formally checked by experienced reviewers before publication; while I'm reasonably experienced, I don't have a ton of experience in this particular topic area. Best of luck, and feel free to reach out if you have any questions about the process. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 02:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Whisper Me a Love Song has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Whisper Me a Love Song 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Gommeh -- Gommeh (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Kwakwaka (00:54, 21 June 2026)

I clicked publish but nothing happened --Kwakwaka (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! If you're referring to publishing edits, they should show up immediately upon clicking the blue "Publish changes" button; if this doesn't happen, then please describe the specific edit you're trying to make and I can help with that. If you're referring to publishing an article, then typically this is done through Wikipedia's Articles for Creation process; I see that you've already done that for your draft page, which is great. Please feel free to reach out with any further questions. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 03:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Kwakwaka (00:55, 21 June 2026)

How do I declare conflict of interest ? I’ve tried making sure everything has a reference --Kwakwaka (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

To declare a conflict of interest, please follow the directions given at Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidance page (linked). Basically, you put one template on the article, and ideally put another template on your own userpage. Adding references is greatly appreciated, and thank you for doing so. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 03:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Ramón Balcells Rodón when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that on another page around 15 minutes ago and fixed it in my code. Thanks for the heads up! Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 21:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from 1st Wikiuser2013 (06:44, 25 June 2026)

Hello , I am new can u please give me a proper walkthrough . --1st Wikiuser2013 (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! The best walkthrough I can give is a guide by experienced editors that's already in wide use. As such, I recommend you go through the Introduction to editing Wikipedia tutorial. If you have any questions about the tutorial, or want to work on a specific task, please let me know and I will be happy to help! Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 16:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

my article was declined - can you help me understand some more

Hello. I'm generally confused by the whole wikipedia setup... I've posted this message to the person who reviewed my article. I have also posted on a general talk page something similar. Can you please help me understand what I should be doing and next steps... where and who should I be talking to?

This is what I wrote... Hello. Thanks for your reply. All references that have been generated are real. I know they are real because i uploaded the copies of these articles, documents myself to a language model and used it to transcribe the articles / text/ documents. I checked what was transcribed against the original scans. In turn the language model helped me generate the right format for references as I'm not a professional. I can confirm that all the inforamtion is true and I can actually show you scans of all the documents and how they relate to the information within the text. I am Gyula Mayer's daughter and as such, i have reviewed in detail all the information in this document against the documents I uploaded to make sure that the information is true. I reworded just about everything so the paragraphs I submitted were not generated by the language model. The language model howerver did help me with the formatting required for this and gave the syntax. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. I can show you scans of all the primary sources etc... and I can show you the links to books that reference my father... all of which I've confirmed. I have tried to be as objective as I can and everything references a fact in the documents I have With many thanks, Kwakwaka (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! My best advice is to have a discussion with the person who reviewed the article, since they've read it closely and know what needs to be improved or fixed. It might take a bit for them to reply, since this is a volunteer site, but reviewers are here to help and almost always willing to explain their reasoning. Offering to provide transcriptions of the original documents would certainly be helpful.

As for the language, I'm less familiar with that since it's not in my typical areas of editing. It might be worth getting a second opinion at the article for creation help desk or Wikipedia's help center. I hope those two links are useful, and please feel free to ask any other questions. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 22:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm hoping that he doesn't want to see all the scans and I think uploading everything here would be super time consuming - there are actually hundreds. It would be better to email all the documents? I'll continue with him. Kwakwaka (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, sending hundreds probably isn't necessary. Just being open to sharing any documents that are difficult to access goes a long way; Wikipedia operates on the principle of verifiability, so offline sources typically require an extra layer of checking, especially if the article relies heavily on them. For now, I think waiting for the reviewer is best, but if there's any other concerns, then I or the many Wikipedians who frequent the two pages I linked above are happy to help. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 22:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

You're invited to the Mentorship noticeboard

Hi, Crestfalling. You are cordially invited to the brand new Wikipedia:Mentorship noticeboard! I get the impression that we mentors are each toiling in our own cubbyhole or hamster wheel, as the case may be, quietly answering mentee questions with little to no interaction with other mentors. I think we have a lot to learn from each other, and I know it will make me feel better just having the opportunity to interact with you and other mentors there, and I hope it will for you, too. Look forward to seeing you there! Mathglot (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Got a chuckle from your username

I got a chuckle from your username. Thanks for that. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I made it on a whim but have gotten pretty attached to it ever since :) Happy editing, Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 18:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Check your AWB script...

You dumped nearly 100 pages into Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls (16) by duplicating parameters. Please fix those ASAP and check your AWB script. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Got it, I'll fix all of those myself and then check the script, give me a second. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 20:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, really appreciate you doing the cleanup, but you gotta check for these things. Appreciate you fixing them! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks a lot for bringing this to my attention. I didn't realize that realname was aliased and have fixed the script accordingly. In the future, I'll make sure to double-check each param beforehand and monitor the dupargs category throughout the run. Thanks, Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 20:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Good plan. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, just for the record, if I had a nickel for every time I've made this error, I could retire and edit full-time! One thing you might try is using my custom template:

• {{User:Zackmann08/cc|Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls|Duplicate args}} → Duplicate args (16)

That will only display in red if the category is non-empty. Whenever I do an AWB run, I keep an eye on that on my userpage. When I see it starting to get large, I immediately check to make sure there aren't a bunch of the article types I'm working on. It is a good way to catch your errors early. Again, these errors happen! What matters is how you respond to them and you get an A+ there! You owned the mistake, fixed it and plan to learn from it. Cannot ask for than that! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the tip! I just made a userpage for that (as well as the dupargs PetScan template, thanks for making it). And yeah, as a semi-experienced AWB user, I know how important it is to be communicative and careful; my goal is to never make the same mistake twice. Thanks for your patience and advice. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 22:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course. Keep up the good work. Hit me up if you ever need help! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Caim's reception

After its copyedit I nominated Caim (Drakengard) to GA but I had to tone down its reception due to an issue with the reviewer. It's only three paragraphs so I wonder if you could revise them if possible. I tried keeping it as simple as possible. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I just finished copyediting that section. Good luck on the GAN, and feel free to reach out if you ever need any other assistance. Happy editing, Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 20:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

DYK for The Moon on a Rainy Night

On 7 July 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Moon on a Rainy Night, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Moon on a Rainy Night was praised for addressing disability as a social concern rather than an individual one? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Moon on a Rainy Night. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (The Moon on a Rainy Night), 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 nominate it.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 Good Article Backlog Drive

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This award is given in recognition to Crestfalling for accumulating at least 7 points during the 2026 June GA backlog elimination drive. Thank you for your efforts! -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

So we do have a rule here... If you are going to contribute to User:Zackmann08/sportspersons, we require funny edit summaries. See Phuzion's GOLDEN summaries here. I kid of course. Thanks for the help! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I regretted not choosing a funnier edit summary as soon as I saw the page history, I'll figure one out next time :D Always happy to help! Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 05:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

HAHA! Well we can't all be as clever as Phuzion... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Automated editing

Hello. I noticed that you have recently been editing at a high rate with the assistance of a script. Semi-automated editing with tools and scripts is allowed only when each edit is reviewed by a human. As I write this, your last 50 edits occurred in 74 seconds, with many occurring about 1 second after the previous edit. This exceeds what is normally permitted for semi-auto editing, and must comply with the bot policy. Please do not continue editing at this rate without using a flagged bot account. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: Hi, and thank you for your inquiry. I review every edit manually; I use wAwB to load diffs inline and a narrow monitor setting to keep everything within a small area, with each diff typically occupying about two lines of my screen with a half-inch height per line. wAwB is designed so loading time is minimized, with the previous diff being displayed for review while the new one is loading, and combined with small diff views and throttling other activities taking internet bandwith, I can comfortably monitor edits and fix them in real time. If you look through my contribution history, you can find numerous edits which I've adjusted manually, or me optimizing things in accordance to patterns I've observed while editing. Just from the past few days:

• I noticed that Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls was getting large after I made a series of edits and worried that it was my mistake. It turned out it wasn't, but I spent 10 minutes tracking down the error anyway while pausing my edits, then going right back to them afterwards
• Shortly after making 38 edits timestamped on the :43 minute mark (a pace similar to what you mentioned), I noticed that Gerry Kennedy had a misplaced pipe, which, while technically not an error, can cause empty parameter syntax problems, which I promptly fixed.
• After making another edit (again, at the same pace as before) which deleted the wrong duplicate parameter, I fixed it within 30 seconds.
• After seeing that many articles using {{Infobox chess biography}} have empty parameters that aren't necessarily applicable (e.g. world championship length for players who aren't active anymore) due to the nature of alphabetic parameter sorting, I added a clarification to my linked edit summary before continuing editing at the same pace
• When I saw that an article I edited had duplicate birthname and birth_name parameters (which is bad practice due to duplicate parameter errors), I immediately went back through similar articles to fix the issue.
• I made a typo on a replacement which caused an extra space to be added for a rare parameter (harmless, but looks a bit off). Within 30 seconds of noticing that occurring in my edits, I fixed it on the two articles affected: diff 1, diff 2.

Additional notes

The second, third, and sixth diffs make it fairly clear that I'm manually reviewing each edit. I have around ten more similar diffs while fixing {{Infobox sportsperson}}, if it'd be helpful for me to dig it out of my edit history. My understanding from consensus discussions and policy is that the quality and usefulness of edits is more important than just speed, and that every edit must be reviewed manually regardless of pace (which is the reason why there isn't a maximum permitted rate for semi-automated editing [please correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but I haven't seen it anywhere and many prolific editors, e.g. Ser Amantio, regularly edit at that pace], and also why that language was removed from the AWB policy in the early 2010s).

I have some additional thoughts regarding why I don't think a bot account is suitable for the particular task I'm working on, as well as more explanation of my workflow and how I ensure this task complies with typical semi-automated editing practices, but that's suitable for a second message, so I'll send this now. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 21:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

So, some additional stuff. I apologize for the length of my message, but I want to make it clear that I would never do unsupervised automated editing and always review my edits regardless of pace for several reasons - I don't like getting blocked, I'd rather not break articles by accident, I take pride in being careful and transparent, and considering how long it's been since I've taken the course, I certainly would never trust my regex skills enough to use them in a script without careful supervision.

• While cleaning up {{Infobox swimmer}}, I was alternating between fixing deprecated parameters at a fairly high editing rate and fixing unknown parameters at a fairly low editing rate (about 4 times slower), which is natural since I'm taking more time to review the diffs for the latter, and again, clearly reviewing each edit.
• At the tail end of cleaning up {{Infobox figure skater}}, I spent a while making manual edits to drafts and other non-mainspace pages with a different edit summary since they weren't mainspace articles, even though they were in my wAwB list and I could've easily just gone through them in a few minutes.
• After noticing some pipe parameter errors (from people putting them on the last line on the infobox even though this is bad practice for several reasons), I went back through and fixed them quickly, e.g. here and here again.
• When I started cleaning up Infobox figure skater (starting slowly then getting a bit faster as I gained a better understanding of what a "good" edit looked like), I realized that a few parameters in violation of MOS:INFOBOXNAME kept popping up again and again, so I made an edit request and left the template alone until that happened.
• I noticed that an article had some problematic infobox coding and went in to manually revise it very soon after.
• Similar to above, diff

These are just the fixes that actually were physically made via edits (which are quite rare, and are almost always the result of preexisting infobox issues). Going through my edit timestamps, there are numerous moments where I pause for a minute or two, almost always after a particularly complex diff or a new type of parameter being fixed (due to how categories automatically sort by parameter alphabetically). Each of those hundreds of pauses throughout the past few weeks have been me going to my contributions, double-checking the inline diff and doing preview tests, then mentally noting it as a pattern to pay attention to in the future. I'm not sure how to check edits down to the second, but if it's obvious to me when I'm checking down to the minute, then it should be even more obvious for the former.

Moving on to being done by bot; I suppose it's possible, though I'm not sure if it's suitable in all cases. Fixing infobox parameters isn't a matter of simple find-and-replace. People don't always use parameters correctly, often copy over flawed syntax even after the original gets fixed, or construct fragile code, that, while technically functional, breaks almost as soon as it's standardized.

Examples

To take a recent example (from yesterday, in fact), {{Infobox Gaelic games biography}} is a mess due to allowing both club= and clubs= parameters, when only one should actually be used because {{Pluralize from text}} exists. As such, clubs= is deprecated and should be replaced with club=. If I had coded a bot to simply replace clubs= with club=, it would've likely worked fine for a trial period due to alphabetic parameter sorting, then suddenly thrown around 2000 pages into Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls because many pages use both parameters, but they aren't recognized as duplicates until clubs= is standardized. However, because I reviewed it manually, not a single page ever ended up in that category, and I coded a regex to fix it.

That's not just an isolated case; for example, after alma_mater= was deprecated due to being merged with education=, I was beginning to fix instances of that parameter when I realized it was also throwing pages into Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls. I was bit slower that time because I didn't realize it was the result of a merge, so around 30 articles got thrown in that category before I checked it and revised my replace functions. If that had been the result of a bot, that number likely would've been thousands.

As yet another example, wAwB uses template protection to only target specific templates, which generally reduces false positives. However, it doesn't protect nested templates. When I was cleaning up {{Infobox sportsperson}}, I standardized headercolor to header_color (as should be the case for all infoboxes per MOS:INFOBOXNAME), but ended up changing the parameter in modular templates that didn't support it as well. I fixed that pretty quickly after noticing the colors were wrong in the preview - that's not something a bot can ever do.

If I had the ability to guarantee that all infoboxes in mainspace were perfectly constructed, that I'd be capable of conceiving of every possible edge case, and that any mistakes could be instantly caught before propagating, I would open up a bot account this instant. Unfortunately, I don't have that ability. I don't like making others clean up after my mistakes, and it's for that reason that I trust myself to manually review my edits and fix them as they happen.

Semi-automated editing is ultimately something that balances a variety of interests to maximize improvement while minimizing disruption. On one hand, we have to consider the importance of minimizing watchlist burdens. On the other hand, we have to consider the importance of making it easier for future editors to maintain articles, as well as as minimizing the risk of actually breaking articles for readers through incautious unsupervised editing. I don't claim to know the correct balance, but for anyone scrolling through this talk page, I hope this is a fairly good account of my thoughts on it. Also CCing @Zackmann08 in case of interest. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 22:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC) (Edited 23:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC))

Since it has been almost a week since the above message, and there have not been any other or follow-up concerns raised about either the content, method, or supervision of my edits, I plan to continue using wAwB but at a clearly slower rate, which I hope addresses any inquiries. For Cat-a-lot, I don't have any way to control its rate.Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 18:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Your GB

Hi Crestfalling... Signed your guestbook and added it on a list on your behalf. Cheers! Volten001 ^☎ 06:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) Happy editing, Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 17:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Most welcome... And thanks for signing mine. Happy editing too. Volten001 ^☎ 03:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of I Can't Say No to the Lonely Girl has passed

Your good article nomination of the article I Can't Say No to the Lonely Girl 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello again. I just wanted to thank you again for your copyedit for the Alice Tangerini article and for all of your help in general. I do not think that the FAC would have been promoted without your assistance, so I just wanted to reach out and thank you again. I hope that you are doing well and that you are having a wonderful July so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the very kind words, and congratulations on the well-deserved FA! I'm glad to hear that my copyedit helped; seeing the improvements that people suggested during the FAC was also a great learning experience for me. I'm having an excellent (if busy) July, and hope that everything is going well with you too. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 21:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I am very grateful for the FAC reviewers, and I have learned a lot from my overall experience with this article. I am glad that you are having a great July and best of luck with everything keeping you busy. My July has been pretty good actually. Aoba47 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

That's great to hear, and thanks very much for the well wishes. As always, happy editing :) Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 23:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Question from Diabitrage on OAuth (06:32, 27 July 2026)

Hello How do I create a citation? --Diabitrage (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! The easiest way is to follow the steps in the VisualEditor guide (link). Wikipedia follows the second system listed in that page; basically, you press the "Cite" button, input the relevant information, and then Wikipedia will automatically format the citation for you. Feel free to follow up if you have other questions. Best, Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 19:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Question from Ibrahim ahmed hamed on Harry & Bunnie (07:32, 30 July 2026)

Note: Ibrahim ahmed hamed's mentor Dot.py is away.

Infobox Character --Ibrahim ahmed hamed (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Do you have a specific question? If it's about adding an infobox for a character, you can copy the code and follow the instructions at {{Infobox character}}. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 18:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Question from Ibrahim ahmed hamed on Harry & Bunnie (07:32, 30 July 2026) (2)

Note: Ibrahim ahmed hamed's mentor Dot.py is away.

Infobox Characters --Ibrahim ahmed hamed (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Question from Moskose (03:14, 3 August 2026)

Thanks for the welcome!

I'm not nearly as active as you, but I have been occasionally noting minor errors on Wikipedia info.

For example., earlier today, I noted that someone had referred to the spoken opening to "Gloria" on Patti Smith's first album, but from extensive personal familiarity, I knew that her spoken opening to "Horses" is very dramatic and leaves a lasting impression, but when "Gloria" opens with the line: "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine...", she very rightfully felt these words had to be sung, very powerfully. So I removed the word "spoken" and the description of the opening to "Gloria" is now accurate... --Moskose (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you very much for your contribution! Since Wikipedia is edited by people, mistakes happen occasionally, so correcting them is sincerely appreciated. Feel free to reach out anytime if you have any questions; I've also left a message on your talk page with links to a few helpful guides. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 04:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Question from Nar.vith (11:56, 4 August 2026)

Hi, Iam a beginner I want to edit simple articles like spelling errors --Nar.vith (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Try checking the Task Center, which has a variety of simple tasks such as copyediting. You can also try your Homepage, which can sugges edits. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 16:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Question from Nar.vith (08:20, 5 August 2026)

Hi . How can I add citation --Nar.vith (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The easiest way is to follow the steps in the VisualEditor guide (link). Wikipedia follows the second system listed in that page; basically, you press the "Cite" button, input the relevant information, and then Wikipedia will automatically format the citation for you. Feel free to follow up if you have any questions about this. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 17:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

WikiLove

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For your work on the WP:A&M/S list and search engine, which is much appreciated. 1brianm7 (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It truly means a lot to me to see efforts on that page aiding others. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 05:38, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Question from F1nch64 (22:47, 9 August 2026)

Hello, I have a question regarding copyright and the manner in which I might upload copyrighted material if it is necessary for a page that I am creating.

I want to create a page for Alex Colville's 1967 painting "pacific". However I cannot find the right way to upload a photo of the painting - could you point me in the right direction? --F1nch64 (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late reply (I'll try my very best to answer future questions faster). It looks like you already figured out how to upload the photo, but just for reference, WP:IMAGEPOL covers image upload policy, while WP:UPLOAD is the standard way to actually do it. Congratulations on having your first article accepted! Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 05:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Question from Senator Stardust (12:12, 10 August 2026)

Note: Senator Stardust's mentor GGOTCC is away.

Hello. I would like to translate an article into Portuguese. Any advice on translating Wikipedia articles? --Senator Stardust (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! To translate an article into another language, you should check the local guidelines and advice of that language's own site, which appears to be at this page on Portuguese Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia's copyright policies, the original English article should also be clearly attributed when translating it. Feel free to follow up if you have any further questions. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 05:12, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Question from DaoneDatwo (12:21, 11 August 2026)

hi there, I was wondering about editing titles/honourifics? do we need a source for that? and if so what counts, anything calling them Dr. or like their PhD --DaoneDatwo (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Titles and honourifics do need sources, since they're a form of factual information about a person. In general, any noteworthy title or honourific can (and often should) be mentioned, but there are specific guidelines regarding whether they should be used within the article's prose. For more information, you can check WP:HONORIFIC. If you have any follow-up questions or would like advice for a specific situation, I'd be happy to help. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Question from NeonPickles (00:43, 13 August 2026)

Note: NeonPickles's mentor MuffinHunter0 is away.

Heya! I don't use Wikipedia much and came across an article that seems to have been translated directly into English from Japanese, which lead to some quite funny and nonsensical sentences that I don't really know how to fix or what to do with. If you read the synopsis of this page, you'll see it pretty fast, many of the sentences don't make any sense in English. What, if anything can I do about this? Is there a way to alert someone who is more knowledgeable or experienced to have a look at it? Sorry, I'm a complete noob and am much more of a passive user than one that actively seeks to edit. Thank you! - Pickles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_Moth --NeonPickles (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for bringing this up. It seems to be some sort of poorly proofread translation, but probably not based on the Japanese Wikipedia article, at least from a cursory glance. Unfortunately, plot summaries are particularly difficult to repair because subject-matter expertise isn't enough; very often, an editor needs to have gone through the entire original work to accurately summarize it.

If you've seen the film, you could try replacing the whole thing with a short synopsis; if you haven't, then it might be best to replace the section with the exact text {{No plot|date=August 2026}}, which automatically flags the article for maintenance. Feel free to ask any follow-up questions if needed, that's what I'm here for :) Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 05:35, 14 August 2026 (UTC)