User talk:Iazyges/Archives/2022/December
 | This page 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. |
Administrators' newsletter – December 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
- The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
- An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
- A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
- Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
- The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
- The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
- The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
- A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
- Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add
/64to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Roman/Byzantine Emperors
Hi, @Iazyges. Great job on the article for Constantine (son of Basil I)! I noticed that you're trying to improve the articles of the Roman/Byzantine Emperors, and I'd like to ask if you want to collaborate. While the more well-known emperors are best left to someone with more expertise, I do have experience with the reign of Hadrian, and I am always happy to work on the articles of more obscure emperors. In fact, I have an A-Class nomination open for Christopher Lekapenos right now. Please let me know if I am overstepping into your domain, though. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Unlimitedlead: Glad to see more hands on deck for Roman and Byzantine Emperors! I have no concerns about "my" articles or domain being overstepped so long as the changes are constructive, so no worries on that front. I'll make sure to check out your A-Class nom; at present I'm not nearly as active as I once was due to grad school, so I'm not planning to take on any big projects at the moment. That said, the Roman and Byzantine military task force of the MILHIST project, and the Roman and Byzantine emperors project may interest you, if you should like to join. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations from the Military History Project
.png)
|
The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves | |
| On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves for Theodosius III, Eucherius (son of Stilicho), and Constantine (son of Basil I). Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC) |
Edited my user page
Hi, @Iazyges. I saw that you edited my user page. May I ask why? The edit does not appear to be constructive, given that it is my user page. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Unlimitedlead: I did not intend to do that at all, and didn't realize I had; I think I must have hit the rollback-all button by mistake. Apologies! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
  Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since October. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: In the November Backlog Elimination Drive, thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our seven-day-long December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available here. Progress report: As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can. Election news: Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's your Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers and best seasonal wishes from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu, and Zippybonzo. *All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. |
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Basiliscus scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Basiliscus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 14, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 14, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2023.
I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Diocletian Featured article review
I have nominated Diocletian for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
|
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} | 
|
Donner60 (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
"No records in antiquity"
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this phrase from Talk:Sponsianus, but I didn't see these words, in quotation marks, anywhere else on the talk page or in the article, and I just wanted to verify with you that you were not referring to this passage that I wrote in the lead yesterday: "[n]o corresponding figure named Sponsianus is mentioned in any ancient sources." By which, of course, I meant surviving ancient authors, as well as known epigraphy (excluding the disputed coins, of course). I did not mean this to imply that he could not have been mentioned by Greek or Roman writers whose works have not survived. If you were not referring to my prose, then I apologize for this message—if you did mean what I wrote, how would you suggest I clarify this passage? Either way, I ought to thank you for your contributions to both the article and talk page this evening. I was beginning to feel a bit overwhelmed by Advancingreturns' edits and messages. P Aculeius (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Postscript: yes, you are correct: I did not mean to revert your move of the unused sources to the bibliography. I was trying to resolve an edit conflict, and keep your changes, but I somehow missed the move of the sources. Sorry! P Aculeius (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- @P Aculeius: No problem! I was paraphrasing Advancingreturns' There are no primary references in the writers in Antiquity. as a broader There are no records in antiquity to disagree with how meaningful the point was: the lack of primary references, as he asserted, was the very point of a damnatio memoriae; the lack of primary references would mean much less in regards to Roman figures than it would for other aspects of history that did not really practice the same. I think a lot of people unfamiliar with Roman history may be more taken with the arguemnt, after all, the more common Western notion is the name and shame: at age six I knew the name Benedict Arnold and that he was a bad guy. I agree with your writing of the lede; the situation is very complex: if Sponsianus did exist, it's likely he suffered an enormous campaign to remove him from history, this is hardly impossible given the treatment of Phocas that has only recently been challenged. If he does not exist, the mere lack of written primary sources does not conclusively prove his lack of existence. Difficult situation all around, but I'm happy with the state of the article as it is, and happy to see an article I had written off as "complete as it every will be" vastly enlargened. Considering if a run at GA might be possible once it's calmed down a bit. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum
- I'm sympathetic to the possibility that he existed, but if the coins are forgeries then it's difficult to find any reason to believe that he was, since there would have been nothing for the forgers to go on in history—at best perhaps an obscure name from Augustan-era epigraphy with no reason to be on a coin. And I found Deahl's analysis extremely clear and persuasive, so I don't see any good reason to believe in Sponsian, even though I can't be certain. I admit that historical figures could have been erased from history as you mention—it certainly did happen in Roman times—but the existence of various accounts of little known usurpers—some of whom might not have existed, or at least may not have been usurpers—in varied sources of Imperial times, such as the Historia Augusta, suggests that there was no need to mount such a campaign of forgetfulness against Sponsian, if he was indeed historical. I think it more likely that anyone who defeated him would claim doing so as an accomplishment, and that he would not be so forgotten that third- and fourth-century writers would not have heard of him, or would not dare mention him. Although it also occurs to me that he could have been a Roman general who never claimed the purple, and never came into conflict with any of the emperors; perhaps the coins were issued in his name without his authorization, and he was never called to account for them—which would be likely enough if there were too few of them ever to come to the attention of a rival. But this is really no more than wild speculation about someone I don't really think existed in the first place! P Aculeius (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, very complex and uncertain. Perhaps one day something might be found. Maybe the Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte has something about it ;). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sympathetic to the possibility that he existed, but if the coins are forgeries then it's difficult to find any reason to believe that he was, since there would have been nothing for the forgers to go on in history—at best perhaps an obscure name from Augustan-era epigraphy with no reason to be on a coin. And I found Deahl's analysis extremely clear and persuasive, so I don't see any good reason to believe in Sponsian, even though I can't be certain. I admit that historical figures could have been erased from history as you mention—it certainly did happen in Roman times—but the existence of various accounts of little known usurpers—some of whom might not have existed, or at least may not have been usurpers—in varied sources of Imperial times, such as the Historia Augusta, suggests that there was no need to mount such a campaign of forgetfulness against Sponsian, if he was indeed historical. I think it more likely that anyone who defeated him would claim doing so as an accomplishment, and that he would not be so forgotten that third- and fourth-century writers would not have heard of him, or would not dare mention him. Although it also occurs to me that he could have been a Roman general who never claimed the purple, and never came into conflict with any of the emperors; perhaps the coins were issued in his name without his authorization, and he was never called to account for them—which would be likely enough if there were too few of them ever to come to the attention of a rival. But this is really no more than wild speculation about someone I don't really think existed in the first place! P Aculeius (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Postscript: Glad to hear that; the edit conflict system has seemed somewhat buggy as of late, not quite sure what's up with it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's just that we were all trying to edit the same things at the same time. If there's a bug, I don't know what it looks like. P Aculeius (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- @P Aculeius: No problem! I was paraphrasing Advancingreturns' There are no primary references in the writers in Antiquity. as a broader There are no records in antiquity to disagree with how meaningful the point was: the lack of primary references, as he asserted, was the very point of a damnatio memoriae; the lack of primary references would mean much less in regards to Roman figures than it would for other aspects of history that did not really practice the same. I think a lot of people unfamiliar with Roman history may be more taken with the arguemnt, after all, the more common Western notion is the name and shame: at age six I knew the name Benedict Arnold and that he was a bad guy. I agree with your writing of the lede; the situation is very complex: if Sponsianus did exist, it's likely he suffered an enormous campaign to remove him from history, this is hardly impossible given the treatment of Phocas that has only recently been challenged. If he does not exist, the mere lack of written primary sources does not conclusively prove his lack of existence. Difficult situation all around, but I'm happy with the state of the article as it is, and happy to see an article I had written off as "complete as it every will be" vastly enlargened. Considering if a run at GA might be possible once it's calmed down a bit. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum
Your GA nomination of Marcus (son of Basiliscus)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marcus (son of Basiliscus) 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 UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Marcus (son of Basiliscus)
The article Marcus (son of Basiliscus) you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Marcus (son of Basiliscus) for comments about the article, and Talk:Marcus (son of Basiliscus)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Reference with quoted material
I note that you reverted my deletion of a reference at Sponsianus. My understanding is that quoted material should be cited at the end; not at the beginning. The two citations are identical, and so contain the same information. Why should the quotation be both preceded and followed by the same citation? If you're concerned that the fact that the passage was quoted in another source itself needs to be cited, I'm not convinced, since anyone examining the citation for the quotation itself would see that. It just seems redundant to me. P Aculeius (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- @P Aculeius: Ah, I wasn't sure if that was intended or just happened in the mess of reverts. It's more a matter of preference for me, to make it easy to establish citations immediately. I have seen edge cases where the "X said Y" and the actual content of the message are separate citations, so I just prefer to be more precise. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Collaboration in 2023?
Hi, Iazyges! In 2023, I plan on participating in the WikiCup, which I thought would be the perfect motivation for me to work on articles about Roman and Byzantine emperors. With that said, are you open to co-nominating several FAs with me next year? I think you've done a wonderful job with your GAs, and I hope I can enhance some of your work. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Unlimitedlead: Sure, I'd be happy to work on some FA's with you. I will say that my time may be somewhat limited, though, given grad school. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's quite alright. I'll try to stray away from any projects that would take up too much of your valuable time. My tentative list for articles I'd like to work on are: Theodosius III in May; Leo II in July; Diadumenian in September. Quick question: before I put an article up for FAR, when would you like me to ping you for collaboration? Currently, I plan on notifying you when I start working on the articles myself. Thanks, and good luck with grad school! Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- That all sounds good. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Unlimitedlead: I see from your task list you also have Thekla (daughter of Theophilos) and Problem of two emperors; with User:Ichthyovenator seemingly on a long hiatus, I'd be happy to help with these if you should desire it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Iazyges, that would be lovely. I was planning on taking on Thekla alone in order to avoid any burden to anyone else, but hopefully the article's rather short length will be compatible with your tight schedule As for Problem of two emperors, it's a long-term project that I'm not sure when I'll begin, but I could use some assistance with adding inline citations. Looking forward to working with you, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's quite alright. I'll try to stray away from any projects that would take up too much of your valuable time. My tentative list for articles I'd like to work on are: Theodosius III in May; Leo II in July; Diadumenian in September. Quick question: before I put an article up for FAR, when would you like me to ping you for collaboration? Currently, I plan on notifying you when I start working on the articles myself. Thanks, and good luck with grad school! Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)