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.
DYK nomination of Mathos
Hello! Your submission of Mathos at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Battle of Crécy
Can you explain me why you reverted this edit made by me. [1] Thank you. Empire ASTalk! 02:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Empire AS: can I suggest that you take a deep breath and reread WP:AGF?
I assume. But I want to know that why my edit was reverted. You said that due to not making any changes in the appearance. There are also such edits on Wikipedia that don't make any changes in appearance but are constructive and I think that my edit is also in the same category, as it arranged the format of all refs in the same order. You also forgot to sign your above comment. Thank you. Tears. Empire ASTalk! 04:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@Empire AS: Firstly, my humble apologies, my earlier comment was misposted. Crecy attracted a lot of attention and I seem to have become confused. Can we start over?
Yeah, lots of non-visible edits are helpful. This one is perhaps a little subtle. I don't see that your edit does any good. If I am wrong, please say so. But when I am using the "Sources" section as a working document - eg adding a source, or updating an author-link, or any other link, or add an orig-year, or making a correction - it is much easier to work with if the code is in what I shall call an "open" style. While going back to alter existing sources "by hand" is a pain that I don't bother with - although if there is an app which did that it would be wonderful - whenever I add a new source, and usually when I work on an existing one, I do so with the code "open".
Eg if you look here (from my current FAC nomination, do feel free to comment at the FAC discussion page ) you will see a mix of "closed" and "open" layouts. Hopefully you can see how much easier it is to both read and amend the "open" ones. Similarly, blank spaces within an individual "closed" source help (me, at any rate) with readability and if one wishes to insert new data. Compare this with here (a current FAC from anther editor). I assume that the latter is in your preferred style, but to me it is a near-impenetrable wall of text. I find it almost impossible to identify an individual work in there, much less a specific detail.
So spare a thought for the fading eyesight of aging editors like me and leave all of the spaces in the code of sources there. Or if you like consistency for it's own sake, start switching non-spaced source code to the spaced variety.
Gog the Mild, First of all my apologies for not assuming good faith. Being a new editor, I understood some of your replies. In your examples, I saw that some sources were in tidy format, some were vertical and some were crammed. There order was not constant. However, I would ask which method is preferable or right to be used like {{cite book|first=|second=|name=}} or {{cite book |first= |second= |name=}} or any other format. Thank you and apologies. Empire ASTalk! 06:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
AFG: no, I posted that in error and have now struck it. You have acted entirely properly.
Ah, well now. I don't think that there is a "correct" or even a "preferred" version. I am certainly unaware of even a guideline on it. So the general rule is (I can't find the policy off-hand) if it doesn't effect the reader page, don't touch it. Even a lot of things which do effect the reader page are likely to get reverted. Eg I put my bibliographies in 30em columns and indent them. This is "non-standard", but if it were to be changed (eg to some non-existent Wikipedia "norm") I would revert it and be within my rights to. Note that most of "my" articles, even the Featured Articles (click on a bronze star at the top of this page) have a mix of formats for their sources. My preference is for:
{ {cite book . |first=
second= ... |
name= .. |
date=….|
etc..... } }
(where a dot indicates a space) but that is not everyone's. There are even several other - completely acceptable - completely different styles of citing, such as <ref> ... </ref>. This is what one might expect from a site where "anyone can edit". So long as it doesn't effect anything there is no rigidity on approach. (Much as I might like to enforce my approach .) And let's not even think about WP:IAR!
Gog the Mild, Sorry for late response. I was busy in other works due to which I can't reply in time. Your preferences sound good to me, but I like other prefs such as only a single space before a pipe '|'. However, thank you for explaining the revert. Thank you. Empire ASTalk! 06:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Why would you blanket-revert obvious sp improvements?
Because you mixed in controversial changes to the article with them. When you made an edit which just made "obvious sp improvements" I did not revert; I believe that I sent a "thanks", and whether I did or not I would like to repeat it here. Some good work there, and it is embarrassing that there were two curly apostrophes in there. Thanks.
Why do you claim that non-controversial edits must be proposed at the FAC page?
I don't and didn't. I requested that proposed changes to an article going through FAC might be best discussed on the FAC discussion page first. I understand this to be normal practice. Am I wrong in this, and either way, why are you objecting to so doing. I would also like to suggest that "non-controversial" is an inherently subjective judgement.
Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not wish to put words in your mouth, but from your edit summary I am assuming that you are relying on "Do not put blank lines between list items" from MOS:BULLETLIST. Would that be correct? I am trying to narrow down the guideline[s] we are discussing so we can have a sensible conversation.
It would, in my opinion, greatly increase the chances of a positive outcome to this discussion if you were to bear in mind the "D" part of WP:BRD rather than attempting to run this exchange like a cross between an interrogation and Twenty Questions.
I do not wish to ... - the answer is yes. (I missed this question earlier on). Anyway, by directly pointing to a MOS my question might be clear anyway, and the fact that I appear on your talkpage is proof of the "D" you ask for. So why would you do so? If you have an IAR at hand then say so. (And please stop nagging about non-existant differences between "claim" and "edit-summarising" and "straightout stating by editing"). -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
DePiep, I don't fully understand your last post, but I am not sure that is important. (Let me know if you think that it is.) Thanks for the response to the query. Just back on Wikipedia today. I shall try to get a full response to you tomorrow.
Hi DePiep, I liked that edit summary! Apologies for the delay. I have started into a full explanation several times, but keep getting interrupted. I am up to nearly 2,000 words and not done. I have a suspicion that no matter what I say you will respond "Do not put blank lines between list items" and the whole debate will become protracted and mostly generate ill will. So, you know what, life's too short; revert to your original edit.
I reserve the right to reopen the debate if there is a similar occurrence elsewhere, as I am still far from convinced that MOS:BULLETLIST mandates no blank lines in these cases. But, honestly, I don't see me ever having the energy or motivation. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
How bad it took you so many words & time & energy to not-clarify while you could have clarified right at the beginning. Now you still haven't. Take good care. -DePiep (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
You take issue with my assertion that diplomatic considerations and naval engagement occupied the first few years of the Hundred Years' War ("No, it didn't") and ask for a source. It is Hundred_Years'_War#Beginning_of_the_war:_1337–1360. While the phrase inserted is a simplification, of course (it's not easy distilling eight years into fourteen words), leaping directly from the start of the war in 1337 to Edward's sailing in 1345 a sentence later begs the question (in the vernacular sense) of what was happening all that time. Something is needed; if you'd care to try your hand at it, I'd be happy for an improvement in the article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Piledhigheranddeeper, that's a fair point about the gap. Sadly, as WP:WPNOTRS notes (in bold!) "Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose". I have myself taken two articles on battles, one on a campaign and one on a siege to FA which all happened before Crecy. The Campign box - which is not complete - further lists three campaigns, two sieges and a battle. So hopefully you understand my doubts about filling what we both agree is a gap - and many thanks for flagging that up - with "Diplomatic considerations ... dominated ..."
What would you, or anyone else following this (we could do with some sort of consensus), feel about something like 'There followed eight years of expensive but inconclusive warfare: Edward campaigned three times with a large army in northern France to no effect; Gascony was left almost entirely to its own devices and the French made significant inroads in attritional warfare. In 1345 Edward attempted another campaign in the north and his main army sailed on 29 June and anchored off Sluys ...'? Feel free to tweak - I am not wedded to this form of words, other than that I know that I can source it.
How 'bout: "There followed eight years of intermittent but expensive and inconclusive warfare: Edward campaigned three times in northern France to no effect; Gascony was left almost entirely to its own devices and the French made significant inroads in attritional warfare. In early 1345 Edward attempted another campaign in the north; his main army sailed on 29 June and anchored off Sluys" etc.
I definitely like the Gascon stage-setting, but would also welcome other contributions.
I like it, but I lack the context of knowing which article we're referring to ;-) --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66: ah - good point - Battle of Crecy. Sorry, slightly over focused there. :-) It jumps from "This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War, which was to last 116 years." [1337] to "In 1345 Edward's main army sailed on 29 June and anchored off Sluys in Flanders until 22 July ..." It has been pointed out above that something to bridge this would be helpful. A tad embarrassing that we all missed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I have a vague memory of asking for more context on one of my reviews, although I'm pretty sure that it wasn't this one or even about the early campaigning. At any rate I think that it would be a worthwhile addition and might be usefully added to the Crécy Campaign article as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Most courteous of you, Gog, to invite reviewers to comment. My comments were pretty much on prose and clarity rather than fact, as I know little of the history of the period. In short, if you are happy with the proposed change, I am too. Tim riley talk 22:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Tim riley: Thanks for popping in Mr riley and for your generous proxy vote. I shall endeavour to use it wisely. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey Gog! If you got some time, there are articles in need of descriptions @ Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Featured content. On a completely unrelated note, I've noticed that the MILHIST folks are looking for new-ish people to run for co-ord this time around. I'd be willing to put myself forward-- do you think I'd be a good candidate/it's worth running? I don't have my heart set on it one way or another. Best, Eddie891TalkWork 22:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)"..do you think I'd be a good candidate/it's worth running?" – Yes.Harriastalk 22:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Eddie891, done the MilHist ones. What period does this set cover? And are there more that you still intend to post? I ask because I note at least one FA, promoted on 15 August, missing from your list.
And yes, I think that you would make a good co-ord and I think that you should stand. (If you don't, expect me and Harrias to turn up at your door for a "chat".) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks on both counts, Gog! I added the one I missed. The script seems to not like when a page name changes after a FAC is closed because it cannot find the archive section. Looking at the archives of WP:GO, that's the only article not posted. I see that I missed picking up a GA nomination of yours -- was on a hike yesterday. Guess I've got to be faster. I'll plan on standing (and I promise it's not just to avoid the "chat" alluded to above!). Thanks for the feedback . Best, Eddie891TalkWork 14:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Eddie891, ah! I should have thought of that. I'll add a blurb. If you want to give any feedback on the blurbs - too long, too short, too discursive, whatever - feel free.
Such competition! Third Punic War was nominated for GAN yesterday if you are looking for one of mine to pick up.
Hiking is a very acceptable excuse for not being glued to Wikipedia!
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hasdrubal, son of Hanno 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The article Hasdrubal, son of Hanno you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hasdrubal, son of Hanno for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Would you mind?
Hi Gog, I hope you're keeping well. I recently created Viet Cong and People’s Army of Vietnam terror in the Vietnam War. I shamelessly copied over the Overview section from various Wikipages, I don't think it reads very well, but I'm having a mental block on how to rewrite/reorganise it. Would you mind taking a look at it when you have some time? best regards Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mztourist: of course not, although I am busier than usual at the moment. I'll give it my standard, bold, feel free to revert any and everything treatment. If nothing has happened within a couple of days, please give me a gentle nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Gog, much appreciated. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Mztourist: I have had a go at this. I have to say that I am deeply dubious as to whether "provoking" the US or the ARVN into atrocities and/or attacking villages merely by existing counts as a use of terror. At least, not by the VC.
You mix DMY and MDY; which do you prefer?
I have finished my first run. Mostly trying for thematic coherence, flow and NPOV. Make any changes you wish, give any feedback you like, and I'll have another run at it in a couple of days.
Thanks Gog, it reads much better already. I usually prefer DMY but will adopt MDY due to the list organisation.Mztourist (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Mztourist, give thought to changing the title to Viet Cong and People’s Army of Vietnam use of terror in the Vietnam War. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I was trying to keep it short as its already a long title. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Mztourist: I am done. I agree with your original point, insofar as I am also not happy that it really flows. However, I think that I have done as much as I can. That's a fine piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Gog, its greatly improved on where it was. Mztourist (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I thought that the hook you preferred for United States war plans (1945–1950) (... that in a 1949 war plan, the United States targeted 70 Soviet cities with 133 nuclear weapons, of which eight would be dropped on Moscow and seven on Leningrad?) was a bit lame, given that a present-day Trident submarine carries 192 x 400 Kt warheads and could easily carry out this program by itself. But I was wrong; the article received 12,717 page views, which is awesome for a non-lead hook. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Hawkeye7: Wow! that is pretty good. It just seemed "hooky" to me. I couldn't explain why, not least because your point is (obviously) quite correct. Nice to hear that over 12,000[!] viewers agree. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm very jealous. My recent one about Kirkandrews' festival with drink, debauchery and great lewdness didn't clear 4,000. What sort of people are reading the main page, I ask. GirthSummit (blether) 20:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit: I would offer out my hook selection skills, but checking my last four I got 6,000; 4,000; 2,000; and 1,200 views . So clearly the magic ingredient is Hawkeye's hook writing skill. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Most DYK articles get 1,000 to 4,000 page views in 24 hours. The top articles of the month get over 5,000. Articles that get over 15,000 go into the Hall of Fame. Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The article Hasdrubal, son of Hanno you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hasdrubal, son of Hanno for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Ticinus 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mathos 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 Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Third Punic War 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 Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Mathos
On 1 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mathos, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the army he served in mutinied, Mathos became the leader of a 90,000-strong force in a war against ancient Carthage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mathos. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mathos), 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.
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.
Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
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. 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The article Battle of Ticinus you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Battle of Ticinus for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
The article Battle of Ticinus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Ticinus for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey Gog, has been a while. I started working on an article about body armour in the 18th century, but I probably won't be able to finish it. Would you like to take care of it? Regards, LeGabrie (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi LeGabrie, apologies, I overlooked this. This is not in my normal area, but by a strange coincidence I have recently filed a chunk of text to be worked into Troops and tactics of the Third English Civil War or similar at some future date and there may be overlap. So I would be happy to take a look at it, although I can't promise to finish it. How are you getting on? Any plans to turn any of those GAs into FACs? Gog the Mild (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the time and motivation to write large FAs like Alodia anymore, so I will restrict myself to adding a few sentences / paragraphs. LeGabrie (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Ibera 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you today for Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC), introduced: "I bring you: an arrogant Roman general; a proud state refusing peace terms with the enemy at the gates; imported talent showing the locals how to fight; elephant charges; a Roman army going down to defeat with a higher proportion killed than at Cannae."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you today for your share to Margaret Macpherson Grant, "about a little-known 19th-century Scottish heiress and philanthropist, who inherited a vast fortune from her slave-owning planter uncle, and lived out her life with a female partner in the small town of Aberlour. I was drawn to the story of her life when researching an article about a church she founded - the source of her wealth, her lifestyle (which was very unconventional for the time), and the tragic circumstances surrounding her death at a young age were all very compelling subjects to research, and I think that many of our readers would be similarly interested." - just yes, thanks for interesting us! Flowers on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I gather that the Carthaginians weren't big on playing golf on the Moon, but if you have a bit of spare time, could you look at the above FAC? It's languishing a bit. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The article Battle of Ibera you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Ibera for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar
It's been most enjoyable working with you to get the Battle of Dunbar into its current shape. Looking forward to the next project... GirthSummit (blether) 15:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of "the next project", shall I insert those chunks of your text I stole from Dunbar and have here - English invasion of Scotland 1650–1651? Then you can see what your sources have to replace the 1911 EB's summary of the Worcester campaign. I was thinking that it could do with a map of the UK, showing the various main battles and other places. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, I think go for it - it can't hurt the article to have some sourced content based on more recent scholarship than 1911. It may be a while before I get round to looking into it in much more depth - tomorrow marks my first day back in the classroom for a while so I'm going to be a bit busier than usual, but once I've got my feet under the desk I'll take a proper look. GirthSummit (blether) 17:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit I have this image of you as a hesitant seven-year-old on their first day at school . Done. No worries, in your own time. I shall work on merging and adding; I am very aware that most of what has been moved in is your text and that I need to pull my weight. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey, form an orderly queue. The 5 points for a FAR aren't worth getting out of bed for. But while I am twiddling my thumbs waiting for a source review of FAC First Punic War or any interest in GAN Punic Wars I'll stick it on my to do list. Oof - that's a biggy. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Battle of Cape Ecnomus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 10, 2020. 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 10, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
Thank you today for the article, about a battle "from the First Punic War. 2,275 years ago was fought the largest naval battle in history, by number of combatants involved. It didn't much effect the war, or even decide the campaign it was a part of."! ... and for the steady flow of GAs and helpfulness just below, in short time that is! See my talk for some apples indicating thanks giving. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Article titles and MOS for apostrophes
There's a long, confusing story involving the title of Landis' Missouri Battery. When I originally created it, it was at Landis's Battery and it passed GAN under that title. Later, it was pointed out that it was out of line with the MILHIST MOS for unit names, so it became Landis's Missouri Battery (I think it went through DYK under that title). I then remembered a grade school teacher making a big deal that when you make a noun ending in the letter s possessive, you only use the apostrophe and no trailing s, so I renamed it to Landis' Missouri Battery. It passes ACR and is at FAC under that title. I have noticed that the construction "...s'" is much less common on WP than "...s's" (in fact, I see the former about nowhere). However, moving the article title back would screw things up major, given the ACR and FAC link it's created. However, I'm not sure that it ought to pass FAC with the wrong title. Are you aware of any specific MOS guidance on this? Full disclosure: I also remember using this construction on Harris' Missouri Battery (1864) and the dab page Harris' Missouri Battery, so this isn't a one-time mistake of mine. Hog FarmBacon 18:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hog Farm: LOL! Shortly after you nominated this I drafted a TFA blurb and the editor who checked it bet me that the article wouldn't get through FAC without gaining an "s", See MOS:POSS: "For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending with an s, add 's". Settled.
Except, "Official names (of companies, organizations, or places) should not be altered." So, if you have evidence that its 'official name' - I know, I know - lacked the final s then leave it off. If you don't or it doesn't, or opinion is split, or it was used inconsistently at the time, add it.
(talk page stalker) Also, if you move it, there are ways to get the FAC and ACR pages linking correctly-- it's more common than you might expect for there to be page moves like this, so I wouldn't worry about that. Best, Eddie891TalkWork 19:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
PS You will upset the coordinators if you change the article title in the middle of a FAC, so wait until the bot has promoted or archived it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, would you or Eddie891 like to go ahead and oppose it now on grounds of the title, so it can get archived now and start the two weeks' clock before renominating quicker? I've seen both constructions in sources, so obviously it should be back at Landis's. With the title wrong, I doubt it's gonna pass, even though it has two supports and a passed image review. Since FAC isn't exactly a quick process, might as well restart the promotion process sooner, rather than later. Hog FarmBacon 20:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely not! While I'm not the expert, I'd recommend just noting that you will move the page after the FAC and I'd imagine the coords and any reviewers will factor that in. Best, Eddie891TalkWork 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Hog Farm: The move would be procedural, and not a matter to oppose a FAC promotion over. If someone has a serious issue with the name, it can be renamed during the nomination, it just takes some tidying. Realistically, pretty much anyone would be happy with an agreement that it will move straight after promotion. Harriastalk 20:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hogfarm Interesting discussion - I hadn't realise (but am not surprised) that the MOS had a view on this. FWIW, I'm a grade school teacher - well, we call it primary - the rule I teach kids is to think about pronunciation, because they have normally learned how to say something correctly before they come to learn how to write it. If you would make two 's' sounds when you say the possessive form of a word or name, you write an s after the apostrophe. If you only make one 's' sound, don't write the second s. That seems to stick in the mind better than teaching them about singular and plural forms, and it usually seems to be correct. GirthSummit (blether) 17:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit, and that is exactly what I was taught. And have always done until I met the MoS - bless its little cotton socks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
All scheduled now for October, here are the links for your blurbs when you're ready. SMS Dresden and Anderson. Obviously no rush Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Jimfbleak: cheers Jim. RL was, and is, a bit busy and my current FAC and GAN have just attracted a lot of comments. I'll post in drafts in plenty of time. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jimfbleak: apologies for leaving these blurbs until so close to the wire. If there is anything further I can do to help get October's TFAs ready for the main page, don't hesitate to let me know. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
How do TFA requests go?
Hi Gog, hope all is well. You seem to be experienced in TFAs, so I came here (sorry if I'm a bother). The thought came into my head that Fabian Ware might be a good TFA for November 11, given that most of his life was dedicated to preserving and ensuring the memory of the war and those who died in it. Can I request that date? Is something already there? Anyways, if you have a moment, could you let me know what how the process works, if it's a bad thought, if I'm making some major error. Best, Eddie891TalkWork 00:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Gog. I think I've done it right, could you double check? Eddie891TalkWork 17:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me Eddie891, I have added a caption to the image and supported. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
FA on the Second Punic War
Hi Gog. Is it possible that you wait until the end of next month before moving articles on the 2PW to FAC? There is an important source upcoming on the subject. It will deal with the battles of Trasimene and Cannae in Livy. I don't know the contents yet, but it will very likely discuss the use of Polybius and other sources by Livy for the descriptions of the battles. T8612(talk) 01:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi T8612: I was not intending to touch 2PW for a while, if at all. I may try working it up to GA, but that will be a big job and it is not currently high on my to do list. So you don't need to worry.
Could be interesting. As a military historian I find Livy good on most things, but tending to be all over the place on battlefield issues. Modern sources seem to agree with this, so I am keen to see what the latest view is.
T8612: I suspect that I did not fully read your request. As you probably know, the Trebia is currently at GAN and I am towards the end of working on Trasimene. (I have on intention of working on Cannae.) I can sit on Trasimene, but would it be OK to GAN it? I was hoping to be FACing the Trebia towards the end of October; is this a problem?
When is the book now due to come out - do you know? Will it cover Livy on battles other than Trasimene and Cannae? Iberia? Africa?
Separately, do you have a modern source (re)stating Livy's breakdown of casualties for Lake Trasimene?
GAN is fine, I won't comment on them anyway, just FAC. I don't know what exactly the book will cover, although I suspect it will discuss Livy's sources and his use of Polybius, and description of battles. I hope they will discuss Livy's battle figures. I have in general had difficulties finding detailed English sources (not just summaries) of the battles of the 2PW that took place in Spain. T8612(talk) 19:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
T8612, yeah, I rewrote Battle of Iberia and the sketchiness of the English language sources is so bad that I don’ t see it ever going past GA.
I have checked half a dozen of the more recent common RSs and they hardly have a good word to say about Livy on battles. Let me know when this is out - do you have it on order? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll likely get it, yes. I found a table of contents here. Apparently, they do discuss Livy's numbers. The problem with Livy and the 2PW is that nobody made a commentary for books 21-30, which deal with the war, whereas Ogilvie, Oakley and John Briscoe (one of the authors of the forthcoming book) did so for books 1-10 and 31-45 (and these are amazing sources); or like Walbank with Polybius. Briscoe also wrote the chapter on the 2PW in the Cambridge Ancient History vol. 8, which I recommend you to use. He also said several times that Lazenby 1978 remains the main source on the war. T8612(talk) 02:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Help. Pacifist me knows diddly about military stuff. Is there a "proper way" to deal with civilian internees as opposed to prisoners of war? See discussion here. I would appreciate any help you can give. SusunW (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Trebia 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 Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The article Third Punic War you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Third Punic War for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Coord election
It's looking like the MILHIST Coord election's gonna be very competitive, especially at the bottom and top points. Good to see there's plenty of people interested. Hog FarmBacon 15:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hog Farm, it looks clear to me already which two of the twelve won't make the cut. At the top end it is tight, as you say, but I would be surprised if the current front runner didn't widen their lead by the end of the month. It is certainly refreshing that we can attract a dozen good, electable candidates; looks as if the project is in good health. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Punic Wars 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 Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The article Battle of the Trebia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Trebia for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
A favour to ask
G'day Gog, I am going to be away from the multi-screen desktop on 29 September and therefore will struggle to close the coord election and hand out the stars, change the @Milhist template, update the coord page etc. Would you be able to do those jobs? Let me know? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that that will be a problem. I am off camping in a couple of hours, so will look things over when I am back and let you know if I see anything that needs further explanation. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Gog, as this was overdue, I have closed the election and done the initial admin steps. If you would be so kind as to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators with the new coords, and hand out the stars, I don't feel comfortable doing those tasks. Harriastalk 15:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Harrias: that is very good of you. Of course. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Harrias: possibly you could complete the set? You can cut and paste from your talk page. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, had the school run, and then an actual run. I see Hog Farm grabbed this, cheers. Harriastalk 21:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
GA reviews
Given how close the Cup will be once First Punic War gets promoted, I think it best that I sit on Mathos until after the contest closes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sturmvogel 66, I had been taking the above as humour, but as it is now four weeks since you picked it up I am beginning to wonder. I would be grateful if you could confirm whether the message should be read as it is written. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
It was real as I'd somehow forgotten that you were still in the WikiCup and I was worried about just reviewing GANs by you and Hog Farm and possibly making the difference in victory. But I've decided that I can just review 2 GANs by each of y'all and equalize things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gog, I think you’re out camping now. Just so you know I’m out hiking this weekend and will be largely off-wiki and unable to respond to the ga review as a consequence. Best, Eddie891TalkWork 19:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: They look up to Scottish Highlands standards. I hope that the weather was kind. No worries re the GAN. My responses complete, although some are queries back at you. Deal with them in your own time. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The weather was spectacular, thanks! I hope to make it to Scotland (in part to hike) sometime in the near future, though with the world the way it is, that may be a tall order – it does look beautiful from what I've seen, and I think I have some ancestral ties from before the split. I'll try and take a look at the GAN later today. Eddie891TalkWork 19:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Eddie891, if you do get to hike in Scotland, let me know and I'll make some suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Just imagine how much more of the beautiful scenery you'd both get to see if you ran it instead :P Harriastalk 20:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Harrias, you do realise that I will probably wake up screaming tonight having dreamt that I was running over the Scottish Highlands, or attempting to, while carrying a camping pack? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Just imagine how much more enjoyable it would be if I walked instead . I peaked at running 9 miles a weekday and 13 on saturdays (on relatively flat ground) and I hated almost every minute of it. I leave the running to others, no matter how much faster it would be. Eddie891TalkWork 20:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey Gog. How was camping? No poison Ivy I hope. Someone got an Award today thanks to you. Thanks for all you do! ―Buster7☎ 15:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Buster7, it was great. Send me an email and I'll send you a snap.
Yup. Appreciation is below; although it seems strange when it should be going the other way.
I have been holding off nominations as there seems to be quite a queue. I have a few for when it shortens.
Hello, Gog the Mild. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Down to four ((not including the Hold)). This is when I get nervous. When it gets down to Two, I panic. Please save me from myself!!!! ―Buster7☎ 11:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Gog. You're the best. 1) I did not find the tent 2)You deserve an Award. Some kind of award for efforts behind-the-scenes, away for the crowded mass of editors, some kind of pat on the back for all you do. Hey! That gives me an idea. Nevermind!!! ―Buster7☎ 15:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I dragged my feet so much on the last part, Gog, but I've finished the review of Punic Wars completely, when you're ready. Eddie891TalkWork 01:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2020.
Current and upcoming events
September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today!
Election reminder: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 December. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.
Drive and Blitz reports
June Blitz: An uncorrected typo (even copy editors make copy editing mistakes!) led to an eight-day "leap blitz" from 14 to 21 June, focusing on requests and articles tagged in May. 19 participating editors claimed 54 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
July Drive: Over 750,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event, keeping pace with the previous three self-isolated drives. Of the 38 people who signed up, 30 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here.
August Blitz: From 16 to 22 August, we copy edited articles tagged in June and July 2020 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 37 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Other news
June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Baffle gab1978, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and first-time coordinator Puddleglum2.0. Reidgreg took a break after serving for a couple years. Thanks to everyone who participated!
Progress report: As of 01:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 532 requests since 1 January and there were 38 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above).
I am a little lost for words at the moment. Thank you so sincerely Sir for your delightful surprise! Kindest regards, JennyOz (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, cheers. It felt like the most difficult FAC I have been involved in. Glad to see it promoted and to move on. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Third Punic War
On 25 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Third Punic War, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Third Punic War between Rome and Carthage ended in the complete destruction of Carthage and the death or enslavement of all of its citizens? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Third Punic War. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Third Punic War), 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.
just wanted to say - good work on the article expansion EdwardLane (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Books
Hi, here is a link for Walbank's Commentary on Polybius (see books 36-38 in vol. III for the Third Punic War) and Cambridge Ancient History vol. 8. In case you need them. T8612(talk) 14:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
T8612, I am home now, but that was extremely thoughtful of you, thank you. And thank you for your patience, I should have an amended "Sources" section ready soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for my cool medal! Amitchell125 (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Came here to say the same! Thanks :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Amitchell125 and Premeditated Chaos: You are both most welcome. I know just what is involved in dragging an article, kicking and screaming, up to FA status. The little brass star is nice, but I reckoned that a more personal "Well done" was also appropriate. Hopefully you will both be putting yourself through similar torment all over again before too long. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
You know, it's funny you call it torment, but I found to my surprise I genuinely enjoyed the process. Everyone was very friendly and in the end I wound up expanding and improving the article in ways I never would've thought to without their critiques. Not sure when I'll be back to it, but I'm sure I will at some point! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Punic Wars you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Punic Wars for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The article Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War) for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Hanberke: Just a note (as the GA reviewer) that I was aware of T8612's comments at the FA review, and as such I read through the relevant section from Goldsworthy, which backs up the statements made in the article. Additional commentary as requested by T8612 may well be necessary if Gog takes this article onto ACR or FAC, but the GA requirements do not require comprehensiveness, and I am satisfied that the article accurately represents the sources provided. Harriastalk 15:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hanberke, good to hear from you. Yes, my current wording is incomplte. I had thought that I had made that clear in the FAC, but rereading I can see that I haven't. RL has recently blindsided me, but I am working on rewriting this section and should have something to offer for discussion soon. Once this is settled for the FAC, I envisage cutting and pasting an edited version into Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War). Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for both of your clarifications. I just thought it was set aside after Gog's "If you feel that it would be appropriate for me to withdraw this nomination, I would quite understand." It'd be nice to see the Third Punic War as a FA. Hanberke (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! Cheers Hog FarmBacon 17:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Me too! Hanberke (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Good Luck Gog―Buster7☎ 20:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
October 2020 GAN Backlog drive!
October GAN Backlog Drive As you have taken part in previous GAN Backlog drives, or are a prolific GAN reviewer, you might be interested to know that the October 2020 GAN Backlog Drive starts on October 1, and will continue until the end of the month.
The article Mathos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mathos for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
A favour
Hey mate, since we have a new government I've decided to try to nominate our new PM. I've expanded and added citations everywhere were needed. Took me a lot of work since I went to bed at 2 am until, I believe it was ready to nominate. It may need some expansions but I will work on those in the evening. My question is would you have a look to correct my English grammer? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
For placing second in the WikiProject Military history monthly article writing contest for September 2020, with 67 points from eight articles, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar on behalf of the project. Good work! Harrias(he/him) •talk 20:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
G'day mate, I'm back, thanks for staying on top of everything (you too Harrias). Could you just check the contest entry in Oct The Bugle? It says August and I'm included, when I didn't make an entry. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker67: I hope that you had a good time. I must be going senile, I even checked that I had the right number of contributors! You always contribute; I reckon you're deliberately trying to confuse me. Not that that is difficult. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks mate, it was a nice trip, but I'm glad to be back at a desktop and sleeping in my own bed. I didn't enter in September, first time in a while. My output at the moment is such that I'm unlikely to be competitive in the contest, so I decided not to bother adding my one article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 34 reviews between July and September 2020. Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Lake Trasimene 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 Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Spendius (Mercenary War) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Spendius (Mercenary War) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Spendius (Mercenary War) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Biblioteca Marciana
Thank you for reaching out with the Featured Article Medal. It was much appreciated after all the tears and blood. Kind regards,Venicescapes (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Spendius (Mercenary War) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Spendius (Mercenary War) for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
September 2020 GOCE drive bling
The Minor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Potential adoption
Hey Gog it is me Kirbopher2004 thanks for the message you left on my talk page I was wondering if you could potentially adopt me with the adopt a user program so that I could be a student under you for the pop culture category.
Write back to me soon Kirbopher2004 (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kirbopher2004: in principal, I would be happy to. However, I have not done this sort of thing before and have no knowledge of the adopt a user program. I did receive intensive mentoring myself when new around here - some of which is mentioned in this reflective essay - and a 'make it up as we go along' approach has its merits.
Note though, that I have little knowledge of and less interest in anything cultural - especially the pop variety. This may or may not be problem to a successful relationship; but if it the light of it you prefer to withdraw your request I would quite understand. Let me know one way or another. If it is a decision to go ahead, are there any particular areas which you feel you are weak in? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I feel weak with school based articles but stronger with Canadian voice actors and the shows that had some sort of involvement from Canada And their voice actors Kirbopher2004 (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Second Punic War 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Second Punic War you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Second Punic War for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Second Punic War you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Second Punic War for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Battle of Lake Trasimene you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Lake Trasimene for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
An award for you!
The Punic Stater
For all the articles on Carthage! T8612(talk) 01:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
T8612 Why, that is very generous. And coming from you, it means a lot. Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Barnstar
Military Barnstar
For your work on the Battle of Lake Trasimene article. Thank you for helping to improve the coverage of Ancient Rome, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Modussiccandi, how delightfully unexpected. Sometimes one feels that one is labouring in a vacuum, so the reminder that I am not is much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Minnesota Featured article review
Another editor has nominated Minnesota for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
On 16 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Punic Wars, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first of the Punic Wars began in 264 BC, and the third and last ended 118 years later? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Punic Wars. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Punic Wars), 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.
The article cites "Coward 2003" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js');// Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Gog the Mild. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Don't ask me why I went Yoda voice for the subject Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Spendius
On 26 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Spendius, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when the army of Spendius was surrounded, his men ate their horses, their prisoners, and then their slaves before forcing him to negotiate? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Spendius), 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.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Utica 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 Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Siege of Tunis
Are you okay if I pick up this GAN to review? I wouldn't have access to most of the sourcing for spot checks, as my university's library is mostly concerned with religious and medical materials, and the local public branch libraries are mostly full of cowboy porn, Left Behind, and Neoconfederate materials, so I'd have no real way of getting ahold of Hoyos, for istance. Would you be fine with me picking up the review, or would you rather wait for someone who could do spotchecks? (Assuming nobody else claims it before I get off work tomorrow morning). Hog FarmBacon 03:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI
Voila: uploaded.
Uploaded the image after your notes. Can make further improvements in a more laid-back fashion going forwards, if you like. Harrias(he/him) •talk 07:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Saw 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War) for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Battle of the Saw you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Battle of the Saw for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Battle of the Saw you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Saw for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Battle of Utica you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Utica for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page More.
Hi Gog, hope all is well. I've opened a peer review for "O Captain! My Captain!". It would greatly benefit from any comments you may have to offer as I try to figure out how to write an article that isn't on a military biography. I'd really appreciate anything. Cheers, Eddie891TalkWork 18:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Bagradas River (c. 240 BC) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Battle of the Bagradas River (c. 240 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Bagradas River (c. 240 BC) for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Assessment of article
Hey Gog, thanks for assessing one of my new articles, but I'm unsure what exact level you gave it with this edit. You marked all of the b-class criteria as yes, but than gave it an overall of C. Normally I wouldn't care, but this is my first attempt to write a book article, so I'm a bit interested in seeing how it stacks up with the standards. Once I can get figured out the various expectations for book articles, I'll probably write a few more. A part of me is aware that probably no-one is going to find these ACW book articles useful, which does give me pause about writing them, since I'm aware that the the vast majority of my output is going to nonuseful subjects (of my 50 GAs, only Batted ball, Alex Gordon, and Battle of Wilson's Creek are anything that someone would ever read). Even though, because I'm stubborn, I'll probably still write more articles about notable books, but I'd like to know if I'm doing it right. Hog FarmBacon 23:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hog Farm: You're doing it right, IMO. Don't look at the diff, look at the actual talk page. I assessed it as B. Get it into the contest. Let me know if there are any more you would like me to look at. Your take on them is an enjoyable read. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
There's Price's Lost Campaign: The 1864 Invasion of Missouri if you'd be kind enough to look at it. It's slightly longer than the other one, mostly because I was able to turn up a fourth review. My standard on these obscure ACW books is if I can find 3 reviews, it's fair game. Hog FarmBacon 23:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Are you satisfied with your final scores in the WikiCup? I ask in relation to the good/featured topic Punic Wars. Now I am not very familiar with topics and how they work, so perhaps you can advise me whether the good topic became a featured topic automatically at the point that the Third Punic War became a featured article? The present scoring position seems incorrect in that the GT (15 points) includes three articles and the FT (30 points) two, but basically it is only one topic. Should the articles all be included in the FT giving it a score of 75 with the GT scrapped? I'm unsure, but I reckon that your final score would still be less than Lee's. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, now there are some good questions.Yes, the Punic Wars was automatically promoted to a Featured Topic when Third Punic War became a Featured Article. I find the rules a little contradictory here, and missing on specifics. (Once things settle down, remind me to propose something a bit clearer.) "If you would have a right to claim points for the promotion of the article to good or featured status, you have the right to claim points for its promotion as part of the topic, even if you did not nominate the topic." would suggest that I can at least claim 15 points for Third Punic War, and could be read as me being allowed to reclaim (in the same round!) points for the other articles. If so, then to my mind this would and should be at 5 points per GA and 15 per FA, although this is not, IMO, entirely clear in the rules. Which would make an additional 55 points. Lee, of course, won by 51 points. However, "Promoting an article that is already within a featured or good topic does not get additional points for the topic. Adding articles to a topic does gain points, but only points for the article added. You do not get points for articles already in a topic when a new article is added." would seem to suggest that I should not even get the 15 points for Third Punic War being promoted, although it refers to a situation different than the one which has arisen here.
Based on the latter conservative assumption I did not claim points, while making a note to seek to clarify the rules later. I did not wish to be seen to be Wiki-lawering my way to first place, or even to additional points. However, I would not describe myself as "satisfied" with my final score, but if it comes down to the decision of the judges in what I can see is an ambiguous situation, well, I have played rugby union and I Munro bag; which means that the referee's decision is final and you don't complain nor question it, and that if you are in personal doubt about something you go the way which most disfavours yourself.
I'm not sure if this moved things forward for you, but no doubt that is why you get the big bucks. I wish you a happy decision making.
Several years ago, when I was battling it out with Godot for the top spot at the end of the final round of the WikiCup, I knew I was to be away from home and would have no access to my computer for the last few days of October. I asked the WikiCup judges whether I could claim any points that had become due after I had returned, and was told by a judge, Sturmvogel, that I could not. The implications of this are that it is not the qualifying for points that matters but rather the submitting of a claim for them in a timely fashion. In your case, you submitted a claim for the FA but not a claim for the featured topic. Actually, looking further at your submissions page, I think that you previously should have submitted a five item GT claim and not a three item GT claim and a two item FT claim as you did in this submission. I think you should get 75 points for a five item FT and not receive any points for the GT you previously claimed. However, I agree with you that the WikiCup scoring page is unclear on the subject and it will be helpful if you could help redraft it in due course. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, I am entirely prepared to go with any decision you reach, but do I understand "submitting of a claim for them in a timely fashion" to mean that "contestants have 14 days to nominate their work" does not apply. It seems obvious that the custom and practise is that at the end of each round, implicitly including the final round, there is less than 14 days to claim. If how much shorter is spelt out anywhere I have missed it. Possibly something else to specify for next year.
Umm. This starts to read as if I am unhappy with the situation, so I think it best if I refrain from further comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Need any reviews done?
I'm on quarantine again for a week (exposure to positive test), so I'm gonna have loads of extra time. Anything you'd like me to try to review? Hog FarmBacon 16:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for the offer Hog Farm, but at the moment I am trying to work through some reviews myself, as a sort of "pay back" for the reviews of my articles during the Wikicup. I do have a couple of articles three quarters ready for GAN, and I shall try and get them completed before you get the all clear. (One is the last of the Mercenary War series to complete the topic.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, if that's the case, would 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) be appealing to you? It desperately needs another ACR reviewer. Between Slayback's FAC and Marais des Cygnes Massacre Site, I've probably got my "pay back", but I'd be willing to claim another GAN sometime. Hog FarmBacon 05:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Hog Farm, that was already on my Reviews To Do list, so sure. There is no need to keep track of QPQs; if you would like something reviewing, shout. If I can review it I will. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey Gog, I'm aware this is gonna sound like a really odd question, but are you an admin? I've always been under the impression you were, but I'm not sure if your are or not. I try to keep an informal list of admins I work with frequently so I know who to ask when I need a quick G6 to make way for a move or need an old revision of a fair use file I've uploaded revdeled. I try to spread it out among different editors, so I'm not always asking Peacemaker and Eddie891 to do small favors for me. Hog FarmBacon 17:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the October 2020 Military History Article Writing Contest with 88 points from 8 articles. Congratulations, Hog FarmBacon 19:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 November newsletter
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.
The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.
Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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, Vanamonde and CwmhiraethMediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Congrats! You're in some fine company up there. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Reidgreg: why thank you. Yeah, it looks good. But I am not sure that it was good for me, or even for me on Wikipedia. I am taking a bit of a break from content creation and doing some reviewing and even a little copy editing to ease down the tension level. And helping out a couple of other editors with drafts which are bound for FAC. It is possible that I will shortly become one of the FAC coordinators - impressive company. Not that I have forgotten that it all started when an already over-busy editor somehow saw potential in a thumb-fingered newbie. And spent a ridiculous amount of time getting me over that initial hump of information overload. Did I remember to say thank you for that? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
My project
As I said, I've been working on a project. Still developing it, but I have struggled a bit with the layout and timing overlaps. I think I finally have it structured okay, and I also think that I have decided that it makes more sense to discuss state progress topically rather than try to do a chronological synopsis mixing up the various states. When you have time, this one will take quite a while to finish, I think, can you put an eyeball or two on it? I am going to be glued to results for the rest of the night, I am positive. Wish us luck. SusunW (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Gog, I think it's ready. I'm panicked about doing it and probably won't get the nomination right, but just giving you a heads up. SusunW (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm back again. I've weeded out redundant refs and reformatted the survivors from the first half of WWII, but the rest has two "citation needed"s and a paid-for site, which I can't access. Are you able to help with that at all? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC).
Apologies, I forgot about your guidance on the talk page, now all fixed. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup Awards
Awarded to Gog the Mild for being one of the eight finalists in the 2020 WikiCup and coming second.Awarded to Gog the Mild for the strongest contribution of featured articles (forteen in total) in the 2020 WikiCup.
Congratulations on both these awards! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant11...Gog the Mild wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition. Well Done good sir!!! ―Buster7☎ 03:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Well done, fellow Eight Award recipient! Although you have definitely outdone me with a second place! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd like some honest feedback at a discussion
If you don't mind, it's here. Hog FarmBacon 23:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Hog Farm: ho ... h ... hon ... hones ... ho ... No, run that past me again? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Roman dates
Good evening mate, I've found this on MOS:OSNS "Dates for Roman history before 45 BC are given in the Roman calendar, which was neither Julian nor Gregorian. When (rarely) the Julian equivalent is certain, it may be included.". Does it mean we should also use Ab urbe condita (AUC)? Any idea whether or not AUC is part of the Roman callender, if so then we should use it in all of your articles? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
CPA-5: interesting find. My reading is that when specific dates are given, it needs to be clear that these are from the Roman, not the Julian, calendar. I guess that I now need to read through a lot of articles checking to see if I mentioned any specific dates. *Sigh* Gog the Mild (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry some of your Punic Wars articles are about only Carthaginian-related. Those shouldn't have a specific date. Especially about your Mercenary War and biographies' articles shouldn't have a specific date. The Punic Wars itself sadly need to be clarified. But does it mean we should use AUC in every Punic Wars' article, that's the vague part to me? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Battle of the Saw
Hello! Your submission of Battle of the Saw at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, sort of well done! I really hope this doesn't impact on your major inputs to articles on Wikipedia. But good luck. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man: Well, sort of thanks. Prior to being asked to volunteer I had already announced elsewhere on Wikipedia that I would be taking a break from nominating articles for FAC, so any hiatus in that respect is nothing to do with becoming a FAC coordinator. I don't however see that it should effect my reviewing efforts, I hope to continue at at least the same rate, although we shall see how realistic that is. (So far this month I have started, and mostly finished, work on reviewing 12 GANs, 8 ACRs and 2 PRs; FACs are next on the list.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations. I am happy that your nomination was successful, but like TRM, hope that your "input", i.e. mentoring of other editors like me isn't impacted. Selfish of me, I know, but there you have it. Were we on the same side of the pond, I'd hoist a beverage with you. Instead, I shall just toast you alone in my garden, say at 7 p.m. this evening? SusunW (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
SusunW: excellent idea. I shall hoist one back at you . PS I don't see why it should. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Congrats, Gog, and good luck! Eddie891TalkWork 23:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Peacemaker67, I shall try not to. I am cutting back in other areas to make time. have formally dropped my GoCE membership and will probably be cutting back on some of the more routine MilHist activities I have been doing. Happily the current coordinator cohort seems very energetic. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Everyone has a small fire inside themselves, this fire is their motivation and emotions. Some people's fire are activer than others and some has a small fire but that doesn't mean their work and legacy aren't fogot nor not apriaced. When a fire dies so does the person; burning yourself by your own fire is the first step of a fire who is dying inside. Only rest, friends or another hobby or another division of that same hobby could safe this fire. Slowing down can heal wounds of the places you've burnt yourself and hopefully they will recover fully. My wishes are with the people who are burnng themselves. If the wounds cannot been recovered then it maybe is time to move to another "you". Caryniess of people themselves is a priority but some don't know this and I'm happy some do. Take care for yourself and don't work that much. This is one of the reasons why I slow downed with my progress and it's a matter of time before someone else you know and care will follow your own babysteps. Wikipedia a big fire who's expanding every second, minuten hour and day; it won't leave you nor you wouldn't leave it. Take care from the bodem of my heart it's your fire and hope you won't forger it to carry it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
CPA-5, thank you for your kind words and I shall do my best to follow your sage advice. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The nominator of this FAC - Jenhawk777 - is becoming stressed regarding the progress of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Biblical criticism/archive2. Not unusual for first time nominators and not helped by it being the article's second visit to FAC. It seems to me to be a more significant than average article and that it would benefit from some candid but friendly comments on its MoS adherence and prose flow. So if any of @CPA-5, Harrias, Mike Christie, and Ergo Sum: fancy having a look, even at a section of it, or know someone who might, it would be well received.
Gog, I should be able to look in, but for even-handedness should you perhaps also notify the only opposer from the first FAC, A. Parrot? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Drat! Thanks Mike, I missed that. A. Parrot, my apologies for the belated notification, and I would be grateful if you could note the comments above. Any comment on whether your qualms from the article's previous nomination, which I have read through, are still extant would be especially valuable. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll give it a look. Ergo Sum 00:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is another country
Just saw your note on Jenhawk77's talk; that's an excellent essay. I would like to link others to it occasionally; how about moving it to a more stable-seeming non-"Sandbox" title?
Hmm. It was never really meant for general publication, it was just a personal reflection to try and organise my own thoughts and opinion. Although an edited version of it appeared in The Signpost last March. I prefer the original version, idiosyncrasies and all. If you think that it may be of some ongoing utility, it is now at User:Gog the Mild/Reflections on my first year's editing. I can't get the shortcut set up, but as you may have gathered from the essay, that is SOP.
As for the thoughts in the essay, it occurs to me that Jen and the biblical criticism article are examples of something one sees occasionally: editors with a strong primary focus, but who are not really SPAs in any negative sense -- they just want to get one thing done, and they work incredibly hard on that one thing. Editors like that are, in my experience, much more prone to getting stressed out and giving up, perhaps because they place more emphasis on the success or failure of a single article. I've started the review and it's clear she's got a great understanding of the material, but I think a comb-through by editors who are not familiar with the topic is going to be helpful. I hope I and the others you've pinged in can help provide that.
Yes, I completely agree. I have assisted seven or eight editors through their first FAC and about half have shown no inclination to return. Although I am currently working with one of these in their draft space on an article which I very much hope will be their second run at FAC. I do appreciate that one can become, and possibly needs to become, a little blunt as a reviewer with regards to the regulars, but it would be nice if the process could be a little more welcoming and explanatory towards first timers; your and Ergo Sum's talk page notes are models of what should be best practice. And hopefully you and others will provide what is required to assist the article to eventual FA status. (I feel quite frustrated. Normally I would dive in, copy editing and encouraging, but feel much constrained by my new coordinator position. So thanks for stepping up.)
I haven't kept track, but half of new FAC nominators not returning sounds plausible. That's one of the numbers I hope to be able to extract from the FAC data I've been slowly assembling. I'm not sure it's a bad thing; I think of the infant mortality curve buried in the bathtub curve and I think what we're seeing in some cases is people who are simply not that suited (personality, skills, interests) to be a repeat nominator. That doesn't mean we can't provide support, of course; aside from the hope that any given editor will stick around, there's the value in whatever article they are working on -- often something quite unlike what the regulars nominate. Pekarangan was the last one I got involved in, but the editor lost interest after some post-FAC work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Mike Christie, I would be interested in numbers from a broad sample. Obviously one cannot extrapolate from my anecdotal three or four non-returners. One no returner I assisted to their only FAC has since generated over 40 GAs and resists submitting any to FAC citing the "confrontational" and "over-personal" nature of their first experience. I am not convinced that this is an outlier, but am aware that I am ORing. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I hope to have the data entered by some time next year, and I’ll post at WT:FAC when I’m able to report on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi again, just a quick note to say would you mind if I reverted your formatting changes to Saturn (magazine)? I'm one of those dinosaurs that prefers the "two spaces after a period" in the wikitext; I find it makes it easier to edit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mike, no problem. It has been strongly suggested that I run "General Formatting" on every article I promote, and for whatever reason the remove double spaces after references comes bundled with it. If you would like to reinsert them, then, obviously, that is fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. If the only change the script suggests is the removal of those spaces, I would suggest not doing it -- there are some editors, though I think we're a minority, who prefer it that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Mike Christie, ha! Yours was the second I ran it on, and I checked each change before "publishing". But I have already realised that it is best to run it, go through the changes and manually make any edits which it suggests and I feel really need making. It's all part of the learning curve I suppose. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Battle of the Saw
On 19 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Saw, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Carthaginian army trapped 40,000 rebels and starved them into cannibalism before attacking and killing every man at the Battle of the Saw? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Saw. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of the Saw), 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.
Thank you for conducting 2 reviews in the October 2020 GAN Backlog drive. Your work helped us to reduce the backlog by over 48%. Thanks for all the work you do, Gog! Regards, Eddie891TalkWork 14:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
SurenGrid
I don't know when or if you will get a response from SurenGrid for Walaka. It doesn't appear he has been too active in November. I had pinged him about his review a week ago. NoahTalk 17:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hurricane Noah, they have edited a few times in November. Let's give them a chance. If you are wanting to nominate another FAC, if you formally ask on the Walaka FAC I will say "yes". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
He said he isn't going to give a stance. NoahTalk 12:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
kg vs kG
Just a heads up, not sure which script it was, but among the many correct fixes (thank you!) here there is one screwup, a change from kG (kilogauss) to kg (kilogram). I fixed it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
GA-RT-22, thanks for the heads up. Mike, is it possible to pass this, probably uncommon, ambiguity on the the appropriate quarter? Gog the Mild (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
This is where I posted the last request; I'm not sure how doable this will be, though, since I'm sure you're right this is going to be a rare case and I can't think of an easy way a script could correctly identify it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gog, not to be a nuisance but just so you know you removed three sources (that were cited) when you were removing unused sources – I've restored them some no worries. If you aren't already using it, I would recommend installing User:Svick/HarvErrors.js, it's super useful for pointing out missing references and such. Best - Aza24 (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you!
Bless you for this! [5]Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Pen & Sword books
Hi, following the remark here, do you think there is enough ground to add Pen & Sword books to the list of unreliable sources here? All the books I've seen from them weren't good, but they also publish in a lot of periods. Perhaps you've already talked about that in the MilHist Wikiproject. T8612(talk) 18:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
T8612, good grief, no. I agree that they are highly variable. I am right now staring at one of their works from 2008 which I recently published and which would fail C class; next to it is a work by a reputable historian from 2006 which would gut one of my recent FAs if it were disallowed.; and next to that a very useful little 2016 collection which I hope to be using in some GAs, and maybe FAs, next year.
They probably produce a higher proportion of non-RSs than some/most publishers, but much/most of their output seems entirely RS to me. If this comes up as an issue at WP:RS/N I would appreciate a ping. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Howdy hello! I know you are a frequent contributor of MILHIST articles, and was wondering if you could spare some time to look at Gallic Wars, which I have just finished my first round of writing and research on. I have spent the last few weeks entirely re-writing it, as it was previously sourced almost solely to the works of Julius Caesar himself, whom I have discovered is hardly a reliable narrator. I will get it copyedited and plan to take it to FA, but I'm hoping you can point out content/MILHIST issues, as I have not previously taken a MILHIST article to any status (although I have been an avid reader and writer of history prior). Specific suggestions on layout, conventions, and missing research would be a plus. Any help would be appreciated :) CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Did you notice that I had Battle of Alesia down on my To Do List? Second item under "Possible GAs"; with the Italian version of Gallic Wars down to remind me to use that a mine - cus the English version is, or was, rubbish. Although I have no idea how the Italian version got to be an FA, with all of that primary sourcing . I mean, De bello gallico cited as a source about 50 times - oh, yeah, sure that's going to be an RS!
I hadn't (re-)looked at the En version, but having just glanced at (just) the sourcing it is almost entirely sourced on the Commentaries, which is going to get a hammering from me if I were to look at it.
Happy to comment on the areas you suggest, but frankly - again without having read the revised text - the first thing I would do is strip out the stuff cited to the Commentaries, which you have entirely correctly identified as the first thing to do, which would only leave me with a handful of sentences to copy edit.
I have been arguably the go to GoCE copy editor for prospective MilHist FAs over the last two years, but have tailed off recently and stood down entirely when I became a FAC coordinator.
Warning, this article will attract a lot of very expert and quite firm opinion. I have found this with my three dozen Roman and Byzantine GAs and more so with my dozen Punic Wars FAs. So be prepared to discuss why several editors' favourite bit from the war is not included/not in more detail. Skimming the FAC of Third Punic War (20,000 words!!) will give you an idea of what to expect.
Gallic Wars had been vaguely of my "to do sometime list", but probably via my First Punic War approach where I brought nine battles from the war to FAC first. But don't let me but you off doing Gallic War the other way round - it worked for me for Mercenary War.
While I would be happy to go through the article as it stands, I am frankly unmotivated to put in the work to virtually re-write and re-source 80-90% of the text when I have ongoing collaborations and solo projects a lot closer to FAC (and less potentially "controversial" see above). This is one of the reasons I stood down from GoCE.
Despite all of the above waffle - sorry - I would like to help. If you were to get it into better shape source-wise I would certainly somehow find at least the time to copy edit it - which in my book automatically includes "specific suggestions on layout, conventions, and missing research". (I have just skimmed it and it was all I could do to stop myself from starting to replace the Commentaries' cites!) If that is agreeable to you, let me know when it is in appropriate shape.
Apologies for all of the waffle above, I am having a bad day; but hopefully you can pick my meaning out from it. If not, do demand clarification!
@CaptainEek: Hope you don't mind inviting myself into the discussion... You can probably get some help from the WP Greece and Rome on this matter. Some quick things to fix: four paragraphs in lede max; don't try to make fancy titles, be more descriptive; adopt a consistent citation style; separate ancient from modern sources in the biblio; remove websites like unrv and historyofwar.org from the sources.
Unlike Gog, I have no problem keeping ancient sources, especially when this source is the only one we have on the events (albeit not so many times), but every reference to Caesar should be confronted to a modern source. Caesar is both the main player and the main historian (eg. "Caesar says that..., but modern historians think...") and he made a number of falsifications in his book to enhance his prestige at Rome that should be pointed out. If you can read French, there is an influential work on Caesar's Commentary: Michel Rambaud, L’Art de la déformation historique dans les “Commentaires” de César, 1966. Otherwise, you have the very recent Cambridge Companion to the Writings of Julius Caesar, which I think must be mentioned in the article for a FAC (tell me if you need a pdf). T8612(talk) 13:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
T8612, cough! If you have a spare going? Cough! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Gog knows my opinions on the use of primary sources, so I'll just opine that it would be better to discuss Caesar's distortions of his Commentaries through secondary sources. Trying to use primary sources in the way that often occurs at the Classical project can lead inexperienced editors into OR territory and it's easiest to avoid the whole problem by not citing primary sources at all. I would not use Caesar as a footnote except for the occasional "color" quote. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, Yeah, I went through and removed basically every citation to Caesar, I have only three remaining that I have yet to find discussed in the secondary literature. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, Hehe, I thought you might have had some of the Gallic Wars on your list. I have already resourced Gallic Wars, only 3 footnotes to Caesar himself remain. But I do like your suggestion of taking some of the individual battle articles to GA/FA first (that'd make a mighty nice featured topic). Battle of Alesia is in quite poor source shape, I think I will tackle it next. Thanks for your feedback! I do think Gallic Wars is ready for a copyedit if you are willing to give it a go, otherwise, no worries :) I have it on the GOCE list anyway and it will be gotten to in time. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The articles on ancient battles and wars are so poor because they were written in the early days of Wikipedia, at a time when sourcing was not a concern; there were very little sources available online anyway, apart from the copyright-free ancient sources. Gallic Wars articles are not the worst though, you can see a really bad one here, look at that section (lol)! T8612(talk) 14:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
request feedback on draft article
hi. could you please look at the draft below, and let me know what you think of it, as an entry? thanks! please ping me when you reply. thanks.
Sm8900, absolutely not my area of expertise, but, for what it is worth:
The outline looks OK to me, but I would strongly recommend running it past an editor from Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing before doing any more work on it.
It needs a more descriptive title - "Comparison of user aspects of IT messaging features" or something similar, as the lead explicitly states that it is not a full comparison of messaging features and currently non-IT messaging features - pen and ink, pigeons, etc - are within the article's remit. (I assume that you don't intend them to be.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
now those are some excellent ideas. I have implemented your suggestions, above. I really appreciate your thoughts, and your good advice. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
Thanks for your contributions in the 2020 Wikicup. If we forget the tragedy and chaos of the Second Punic War then again we could have a mutually assured destruction event with elephants or even worse. I appreciate you keeping the memory alive. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Bluerasberry: thank you, I shall sip with relish. You may, like me, find the Mercenary War, when an admittedly makeshift society fractured and rapidly descended into horrors grotesque even by the brutal standards of the time and nearly achieved an actual MAD, even more of a warning. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Peroz I
Hello:
Quick question? Can we (GOCE) mark your copy edit of Peroz I "done"? It appears this is the case, but I did not want to presume this is the case. Thanks! Twofingered Typist (talk)
Twofingered Typist, yes, of course, it has been at GAN for nearly two weeks. Apologies, I marked it down in my log, informed the editor and completely forgot to sign it off at Requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Inverkeithing 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you today for Battle of Pontvallain, in collaboration, introduced: "In 1365 after 28 years of strife England won the Hundred Years' War and France signed a humiliating peace. In 1369 France reopened hostilities, using Fabian tactics and guerilla warfare. The English responded with the tactics of the first phase of the war, and in 1370 cut a wide swathe of fire and plunder across northern France. The French refused to be drawn. With winter coming on the English fell out and divided their forces. After a forced march Bertrand du Guesclin surprised a major part of the English, and wiped it out. With unusual coordination, a subordinate caught another English force the same day, also wiping it out. The English remnants were hounded remorselessly and the English position in France was wrecked." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The article Battle of Inverkeithing you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Inverkeithing for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Re RfC responses to date – day two
Hey:
(1) Thanks for the comment at the RfC on the American Revolutionary War. Four other editors have mentioned that there is too much packed into the RfC as presented.
- Conclusion: If participation is not more responsive over the next two weeks, say by December 20, I’ll circle back around to this some time in February after soliciting more input and guidance.
- imho, the scope for the article ARW needs to be clearly defined with a title that means that scope as sourced to (a) a scholarly reference source, and (b) with prominent adherents, like wp says, and no more, “precise scope”, wp says.
(2) One proven friend editor actually suggested I’m wp:bludgeoning!
- Conclusion: Until December 10, no more from me on the RfC, other than maybe updating new discussion points. -- wp:guidelines say, “pause”, so be it.
(3) The query is, “Which title to choose to define the scope of the article?” Easily half-a-dozen editors in the first two days replied essentially, “The name is the name.”
- Conclusion: They cannot ALL be wrong. I’ve misfired on my RfC composition here, clearly.
(4) One editor reported seeing no connection between the RfC as to choosing scope & title, but it was my intent that the discussion box provide the two titles and their respective scopes.
- Conclusion: Somehow the information in the boxes was not conveyed, not at all, in some cases.
(5) One editor did get my drift, but to my amazement, he denied there was any difference between the two historiographies, “they are the same”, that is, in American historiography, siege Gibraltar = siege Yorktown, and port Savannah, Georgia = port Trincomalee, Ceylon - in their relative weights and importance to the American history of the Revolutionary War. – No joke.
- Conclusion: back to the drawing boards without a turnaround in the RfC responses by December 20.
Any observations and suggestions you may have for the February trial would be welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Dumelow, that is most generous of you, especially as you did most of the heavy lifting for this. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Gog, and for the barnstar by return. It was an excellent group effort that I enjoyed being part of - Dumelow (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Great minds, Mike -- I only saw your post after I took care of it... They were added to the log, just to a slightly different month (only one out)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
That explains it. I thought that I was going mad(der). I was sticking to my checklist - without realising that this aspect of the checklist needed updating each month. *rolly eyes* Lesson learned. Thanks for flagging it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry, we've all done it... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Gog, thank you for shepherding FAs to completion and all the other work you do. It is always a pleasure to see your byline on a page. :) Neopeius (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Neopeius, you are embarrassing me. But thank you for the barnstar, which you probably know I am a sucker for, and more so for the kind words. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
GOCE November drive barnstars
The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 12,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE November 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 5th Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 4,896 words – during the GOCE November 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Election time: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before Auld Lang Syne. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.
December Blitz: This will run from 13 to 19 December, and will target all Requests. Sign up now.
Drive and Blitz reports
September Drive: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive.
October Blitz: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz.
November Drive: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests.
Other news
Progress report: As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above).
Annual Report for 2020: this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February.
Hello! I believe we've had a few small interactions in the past and I saw your name when I was looking through the list of FAC Mentors. I know you do mostly MilHist work, but I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping/mentoring me with the goal of getting Ted Kaczynski to FA. I have no experience with FA, and I only have one GA under my belt. I believe all of the images on the page are freely licensed, with most falling into PD. The section on Industrial Society and Its Future is a bit bloated in my opinion and could use splitting, but I'm not sure there are many sources that cover the essay itself and don't point their focus more towards Kaczynski. I'd be willing to create that article (if it is determined that it's notable) and do all the other more monotonous tasks if you'd like - just looking for general guidance and making sure I don't make many "rookie mistakes." Thanks! AviationFreak💬 11:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi AviationFreak, sure. A bit of my usual beat, but that should be fine. I will look it over and post some comments on the article talk page. I am a little busy at the moment, so if I haven't done anything by Saturday feel free to ping me. Please note that FAC is a tough standard and given where you are starting from may seem like a steep learning curve. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm always up for a challenge, and I haven't really got anything else going on at the moment. Thank you! AviationFreak💬 12:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia, I wonder if you could do AviationFreak a small favour and take a look at just the "Table of bombings" section of Ted Kaczynski. In your opinion, if this is going to FAC, is the layout as a table acceptable, or should it be recast as prose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi AviationFreak, I have gone through the first large section and it appears to be to a high standard. Whoever has been working on it has done a good job. I have left some notes on the talk page. Before I go further, could you check that they are the sort of thing you were expecting, that you understand them, and that they are of use to you? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Adding it to my list, will get there as soon as I can, but Tables are not my strength. Be forewarned... he killed a friend of the family :( Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
You can't be worse than me Sandy. Just the table will be fine. No need to dredge up memories. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Is User:Hrodvarsson on board? They seem to have written most of the article, and still be active, so they would have to be consulted for the FAC ... will head over there this evening. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
17.3%. And that is AviationFreak's issue, as and when they finish their contributions, are considering FAC and dependant on what the situation is then. AF may never get there, so I don't intend to burn that bridge until we get to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, my FAC review was shorter than I thought it would be, waiting to hear from Ceoil at Cups (song), so I went ahead and had a look. I don't feel like the table needs to be converted to prose, because the content is summarized well in prose before the table. Problems occur when information is only in a table, that needs to be prosified, which doesn't seem to be the case here, and I like the addition of a table as a visual aid. But there are a lot of elements in the Table, and I always worry about accessibility. The editor I know who understands accessibility in tables best is RexxS, and he is so busy with medical stuff, that I hate to wear out my welcome by pinging him for a request to look, just when the COVID vaccine is launched and we are all so busy with that. It would be preferable if AviationFreak instead would go to RexxS's talk and ask if he would perhaps have the time to evaluate the table for accessibility, and be prepared to wait a few days. Other than that, reading that section just pissed me off all over again, so I didn't read any further, but was quite happy to see the word "murder" used where it should be, at the 1995 murder of Gilbert Brent Murray. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
As far as the CE Notes left on the talk page, I think I generally understand all of the points listed. One thing I am unfamiliar with is the term "linking sentence" in the third point, so if you could clarify that it would be appreciated. I'll be sure to contact RexxS about accessibility. Thanks! AviationFreak💬 22:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
AviationFreak: Right, I have finished my initial comments. Hopefully they give you plenty to crack on with. I would recommend doing what you can then putting it up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, specifying that you are aiming for FAC. Then report back in. Obviously, if you have any queries before then, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Changed my mind
Thanks for the ping, Gog; I really do appreciate how diligently you are checking back with reviewers, so I initially thought I would go ahead and lodge my Oppose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Warner Bros. Movie World/archive1 because I still see issues everywhere I look. But no, not gonna do it ... because the several hours it would take me to go through that article would be unfair to the many, many worthy and well-prepared nominations on the page that I haven't had time to review, even though the nominators took the time to assure their articles were ready. The Warner Bros. FAC (along with several others currently on the page) is now over six weeks old, yet on the same day it was nominated, I stated it was not FAC ready. So, I should have Blatantly Opposed rather than be polite; clearly my fault, and I should know that as well as anyone.
While I understand that some reviewers feel OK about spending their time trying to pull prose up to standard via FAC (or supporting an article on prose only, without consideration of faulty sourcing), and I admire those reviewers and the nominator who persevere, I believe that approach results in a faulty allocation of resources and ends up discouraging reviewers from engaging (as it has me, and I wonder what effect it had on Spicy, who has turned very quickly into quite a solid reviewer). When you have to spend disproportionate time on the least prepared, one can wonder ... to what end? I have chosen instead to put my money where my mouth is, and promise to meet nominators at WP:Peer review, which I have worked to (hopefully) re-invigorate, because peer review is a better way to prepare an article for FAC, without the pressure of time constraints, resulting in a less frustrating experience for both nominators and reviewers.
Attempting to pull the prose (or worse, sourcing) up to standard while an article is at FAC often means that the significant matters that we should be looking at to merely fine tune a prepared article before it gets the star may be overlooked. As they appear to have been at Warner Bros, because I still find sub-standard prose, MOS issues, and more significantly, problems verifying content. It is just not fair to other nominators to allocate limited time to ill-prepared nominations, that would get the star faster if they were shut down sooner, and sent to Peer review where we can work without time pressure and the need to engage the cycle of re-visit, strike, review again, rinse lather and repeat. I don't mind doing that at PR-- that's what PR is for, and editors who take that route are being more respectful of everyone's reviewing time and limits, as we don't have to work under time pressure or the need to revisit at PR.
As I have time, I'll dig in again at FAC, but reminded again to lodge opposes rather than polite suggestions that the article isn't ready and should be withdrawn. This has turned into a much more serious problem at Biblical criticism, where the sourcing and source-to-text integrity problems are of more importance than for a theme park. Working on prose when multiple reviewers have invested days of time uncovering sourcing problems, and then see a FAC launched while they are in the middle of re-reviewing faulty sources, is demoralizing. And that's what is wrong with an approach that allows ill-prepared noms to stay on the page while people try to polish the prose, rather than address underlying issues that come from a hurried presentation at FAC. The instructions say (for good reasons) that articles are archived if at least one nominator feels they are ill-prepared; engaging FAC when that is not the practice is demoralizing, in particular because I end up feeling that I am taking my limited time on and rewarding (a faulty behavior) in those who haven't taken the time they should at the expense of those who have, because then I don't have time to properly review the prepared articles.
Sorry to disappoint :( I am putting this here rather than at WT:FAC, because we've had this discussion so many times already, and it goes nowhere, reviewers are discouraged and disengage, and because I did ping you to say I would review. Bst regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Sandy, just a note to say that since I supported both those I will try to find time to take another look at them with more of a sourcing eye. When I review for content I don't check source-text integrity or spend a lot of time on source review unless something catches my eye, as this comment has, so perhaps I missed something. I would also say that any proposal that can lead to FACs arriving with a FAC-level source review already completed would be something I'd support; as you know I tried this some time ago but it didn't gain consensus. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I just long for the days when Ealdyth was in their first, and early ... and we shut them down on sourcing before people spent hours on prose. I see people investing hours at Biblical criticism, but I assure you that both A. Parrot and I, who spent time looking at the sources, know there are deep problems there. Launching a FAC while a previous reviewer is still reviewing whether previous issues had been addressed was once a guaranteed oppose; I wouldn't expect A. Parrot to want to invest the time now, and I am tired of the snipes because I tried to help on the kind of topic we should be giving a serious grilling via PR. And I regret seeing the time you have had to spend at Warner Bros. when so many well prepared noms are languishing on the page. I can't get many of the Warner Bros sources to even load, and in multiple cases, where trying to figure out how I can help solve the (still) awkward prose, I can't even figure out what sources are supposed to be citing what text. I am feeling considerably discouraged about FAC at the moment, but tomorrow is always a better day ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Ps, for a starting place at Warner Bros, one I can recall (before I gave up) is the 5,000, Clint Eastwood paragraph. The prose is so awkward, but see if you can figure out what source goes with which text, and whether you can get them to load. I was trying to do that so I could attempt to address the prose ... things like that got me to give up. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sandy and thanks for the note. As a FAC coordinator I am but a humble assessor of consensus. And I would not wish, for obvious reasons, to say much about specific articles currently at FAC. In extremis I can recuse and review myself, but "Time, time; ask me for anything but time." As you are aware, I am not adverse myself as a reviewer to putting in a swift Oppose - not FAC ready, which does not necessarily make for a quiet life. I also, like you, do my share of helping get articles FAC ready (Bath School Disaster, Henry of Anjou and the thread immediately above this one among quite a few.) If individual reviewers prefer to spend time and effort getting FACs up to scratch, rather than an arguably more rational of their time, well, they are all volunteers and can spend their time how they wish. Something which I suspect has put off nominators has been the short comings of the PR system, and I think that the work you are doing there to get it up to doing what it should is fantastic. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I know all of this Gog; don't mind my blathering because I'm momentarily discouraged :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mike Christie, just checking to see if you have anything to add to your FAC comments for Warner Bros. Movie World. No pressure either way, I would just like to know. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder; I'd been meaning to get to this this weekend. Looking at the paragraph Sandy mentions, several of the sources are subscription only, but checking what I can from the rest, everything seems accurately sourced and the sources are reliable for what they are used for. There was one source that was not marked as subscription required, so I've left a note on the FAC page about that, but I don't see anything that causes me concern. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. Much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Mike Christie, if you have been able to verify which cite supports the 5,000, maybe you can relocate the citation to the 5,000; I made no progress (as one example). I was initially trying to address this prose when I hit a wall accessing sources: The evening prior, 1 June, a special edition episode of Hey Hey It's Saturday ("Hey Hey It's Movie World") shot on-location had host Daryl Somers interview many of the celebrities in attendance, such as Eastwood and Russell.[h][21][26] The park opened to the public on 3 June.[21][27] Between 400 and 500 new jobs were created upon its opening. "The evening prior" sentence is ... ugh. And were the jobs "created upon its opening"? I doubt it ... they most likely had to hire the people before they opened. I find things like that everywhere, but because the sources gave me nothing but a white screen, I couldn't even decipher how to begin prose repair, without resorting to a lot of template: request quote. The persistence and patience of this editor is an example of why I feel more obliged to give my limited time to an editor who works problematic articles through PR, rather than expecting them to be pulled up via FAC, where reviewers have to return again and again to strike, respond, etc. Separately (not related to this particular FAC), I wish we could get away from the legacy a certain group of editors left upon FAC, by chasing off any reviewer they disliked or who took their prose to task, assuring that most reviewers wouldn't go near their work, and used FAC as a lengthy prose nitpick on their route to pushing each others sub-par prose up the line to TFA ... but hey, that strategy worked for them, so why wouldn't others try it? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The 5,000 number is cited to one of the pay-walled sources, so I wasn't able to check that -- I checked all the non-subscription sources in that paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Biblical criticism
I am writing every commenter on the FAC that someone is complaining about the length of the FAC so I am asking everyone if they have any comments that can be moved to the Talk page instead. I would deeply appreciate anything you can do to help with this issue. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Jenhawk777, one of the issues is people using smiley faces and completed ticks in FACs. We ask editors not to in the instructions but they forget or think that we only say it because we are po-faced kill joys. If you could spread the message that there is a reason for it that would be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
This tells you something of how inexperienced I actually am. I knew not to use the Done template, and haven't, but I didn't know that everything with curly brackets qualifies as a template. DUH! I am a code illiterate. I found and removed 5 smiley faces that I had placed, though SandyGeorgia says someone named DrK had already gone through and substituted for them. I thought from her post that the problem was two-fold, its length and the templates, so I asked people to follow SandyGeorgia's example and move what they could to the Talkpage. I tried to cooperate and help fix the problem, but I don't know that I did any good. I will pass on this information anytime I can. Sorry for the trouble. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I am going to take the chance you won't hold this against me, and even while I know it won't make any difference, that it's done now, I want to speak my piece about the closing of the FAC at BC because I think it was premature, and I want to explain why.
You said there was not consensus to support, but all the reviews on the actual review page were support. Two of the reviewers were almost done but hadn't completed their reviews yet. They had slowed down, but it's the holidays, and I was cutting them some slack and not complaining. If you had said something, either to them or me, I would have said something to them as well. I know Axl wanted to finish, and I feel confident those last two reviews would have supported, but we'll never know because they never got asked if they wanted to finish or not.
You said BC may have come to FAC too soon, and since Sandy was the only editor who ever made that comment, I assume you were responding to her off page comments. Her criticism of the article may have been fair when the article first came to FAC, but by the end, all the issues were dealt with, so by the time you closed it, they were no longer applicable. Sandy said there was OR in the article. That was one place where I used emphasis on one word. Sandy said that was editorializing, which was the same as OR. That definition is not in the MOS on emphasis - or anywhere else that I can find - but I took it out anyway, so that became a moot point. She said I had misused sources because I had included references for scholars who don't have wiki pages yet. She said those pages qualified as self-published, so I removed them all, so that too was a moot point by the time you closed the FAC. She said there was inconsistency in the referencing style referring to the fact that when one author was referenced multiple times, rp was used, and it wasn't used if an author was only referenced once. According to the Teahouse, where I got that, and the MOS, that's the way rp is supposed to be used. She doesn't like rp, and wants all the rp's replaced, but there was no consensus for that. She wanted to split the article, and strongly disliked its length. I gave multiple reasons why I thought splitting was a bad idea, but I said I would go with the consensus. There was no consensus for splitting it.
By the time the FAC was closed, all her issues had been addressed one way or the other. That may have been a valid discussion for you at FAC to have about the condition BC came in, but by the end of its nine weeks, they were not valid reasons to close it.
I am taking a break for awhile and am probably done with BC and FAC. I invested too much in it, months and months of my life. I will probably be back in the new year, but I won't be working on this article anymore. I need to let it go. It's sad for me, but it's also sad for WP I think, because this article deserves to be listed among its best, and if it had been given one or two more weeks for the last reviewers to finish and offer the support I think they would have, I think it would have been. I'm sorry it didn't get that chance.
I hope you and yours have a wonderful holiday season. I wish you all the best. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Your essay
I hope you don't mind, but I have now posted your essay on my page with its link. Thank you for that! I loved it. I had a harasser instead of a mentor. He ran me of for two years. I'm afraid that happens at least as often as your experience. But at least I'm back - for now anyway - and have found some exceptional people through FAC. I will endeavor to persevere and do the next thing. Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Of course not. And this is Wikipedia, so it wouldn't matter if I did. I find it a little puzzling that something I wrote mostly for myself seems to be so popular, but then, I never claimed to understand life. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
You and St.Augustine. I think his most powerful writing is his personal reflection in Confessions. It's real. That's why everyone likes your essay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
"... but not yet Lord." Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason, why you add new entries with "Nov" (1 & [6], when it's already December? Regards, ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Armbrust, rhetorical, I take it. Perhaps it is my innate talent for discovering new errors to make? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I am having an outside social distancing bonfire progressive dinner party tonight (a whole new post-COVID world), but should be able to review, maybe even two or three, tomorrow ... please give me a hint on several FACs where review is most needed, as I am now behind on the entire page, and would rather start back in where you are most lacking ... I usually end up stuck with the hurricanes :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy, that's good of you. FACs which have been warned they may time out soon, or are getting close to that, with the number of supports they have received to date in parentheses include:
Could you please close the FAC for Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael? People have brought up this shouldn't exist even if the main article is significantly expanded on. Guess I will see you guys again in maybe 2 weeks then. NoahTalk 12:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Amkgp, I have tweaked the nomination and, it says here, if you wait a short while "a bot will reset the nomination in its same position in the queue on the GA nominations page". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, Thank you very much. Hope the bot will do the reset soon. Also, can you suggest any improvements that can be done before it is taken up for review. — Amkgp💬 17:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Amkgp, on a quick skim in seems to be in pretty good shape. Maybe a bit quote heavy towards the end. (MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".) But I would leave it and see what an assessor says.
Cite 6 title should be in title case, not all caps. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, I have fixed the title case of the reference. Actually, they are praises for the tree. The original German version had much more, but I left many of them and kept some including important one from the King and his poem. Hope it passes whenever reviewed. Thanks for having a quick look. — Amkgp💬 17:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Rescuing sources
Hello hardworking editor! Can you help us to rescuing sources of two articles Censorship in Iran and Internet censorship in Iran? I try to do that but the IABot says you haven't permission. Could you do it please. Thanks for your editing articles with complete information.--Arash00011 (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Arash00011, I am not sure that I understand this. I have saved and archived your links, was that what you wanted? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, You did what I wanted you to do. Thank you.Arash00011 (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Half Barnstar
Many thanks for helping me get Battle of Powick Bridge over the line and reach Featured status. Your frequent help and support is always appreciated, by me and others. Harrias(he/him) •talk 09:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Harrias: I butcher your FAC and you give me a barnstar. That seems wrong somehow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Heraklion 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 Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The article Battle of Heraklion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Heraklion for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Help?
You are much better than me at figuring out how to search stuff on here, especially if it has to do with titles and such. Do we have an article that explains the interrelations of the various monarchies of Europe and how that perpetuated foreigners ruling in various countries? SusunW (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
SusunW, I am not entirely sure what you are asking for. In particular whether you what the definitive treatment or an example. If the latter, is Descendants of Queen Victoria helpful. If yes, would you like more; if not, could you be a little more specific?
Waiting with interest to see how this relates to women's citizenship. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll be more specific. Barely, and I do mean barely started. Trade and the prevalence of "foreign rule" spread these customary practices for marriage and inheritance throughout Europe is what we're focused on and the Brill piece's 1st 2 paragraphs explain fairly beautifully how countries were passed from empire to empire (because some French dude became the monarch in England and then that person was replaced by some Dutch dude, who married some Spanish royalty, whose kids hooked up with a German, and then married a Russian). LOLSusunW (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
SusunW, OK. I kinda know what you mean. Does Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor where this happened, or the War of the Spanish Succession where Europe went to war to stop it happening help? If there is an article which covers the same ground as the Brill page - and it wouldn't surprise me if there was - I am afraid that I can't find it.
Charles V is a perfect example of what I am talking about, Victoria's descendants show the widespread phenomena, and the War of Spanish Succession explains why all the interrelated parties were interested in shifts in power, but neither exactly explains how this became so convoluted. Do you think one of them should be linked in the draft? I'd like to help the reader understand the concept, but don't want to get off-topic to any great degree. Of course if you have time and the inclination, you are welcome to jump on the draft, which I don't predict will be ready for mainspace for multiple months. ;) SusunW (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
SusunW, you shoulda said. That is right up my street. I am a bit busy ATM, but I'll take a look. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
You have my blanket invite to jump into anything I am working at any time on as long as I do not have to maintain any "proper" nonsense. SusunW (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
SusunW, OK. But no gloves. Of any type. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Dammit! SusunW (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Rethymno 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 Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations
Congratulations! With 6,230 views, your Battle of Inverkeithing hook is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of December. Accordingly, it has been included at DYKSTATS December. It had a really intriguing twist that made one want to click to find out, "Why would Cromwell have done that?" Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Cbl62, thanks, I appreciate that. In November I got 23,000 views, over 24 hours, for Battle of the Saw. I'll see what I can come up with for January. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I remember that one. The name alone was intriguing ... add cannibalism and total carnage on top of that and you have a real attention grabber. ;) I look forward to your next offering. Cbl62 (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gog, I've made a map of Roman Africa in 146 BC, if you want to add it to the articles on the PW. T8612(talk) 15:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Purple barnstar
The Purple Barnstar
I hereby award you the Tyrian purple barnstar, for your successful Punic Wars franchise (a bit obscure reference, but "Phoenicia" supposedly relates to Greek for purple)! FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I've always appreciated your and other editors abilities to work on high-level topics like whole wars and campaigns and the really major battles. My limitations keeping me on brief cavalry skirmishes and obscure artillery batteries makes me almost feel like I'm not pulling my weight. Hog FarmBacon 23:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely. You need to pull your socks up. Enough of this shilly shallying around, it's time to take War to FA!
It is easier with earlier periods. A day's worth of actions might be five separate skirmishes in the ACW, maybe a one small battle in the 100 YW and not get mentioned in the PWs. There is probably more information available on the ACW than on all conflicts combined before 1500. Perversely, that lack of source material makes it easier for us earlier period types.
Note that as I write on more recent conflicts I choose smaller events: a regimental one day fight in 1945; a regimental one week combat in 1941. I am working up to Battle of Crete, but even that was over in a week and only just gets over divisional level.
Plus I have got good at summary style. A natural bent reinforced by practice. You want to give me a hand with the TFA blurbs? After boiling a 6,000 word article down to under 1,025 characters including spaces, while keeping the prose up to main page standard, normal summary style is easy. Eg, The ACW: stuff happened, the good guys won. See?
You have already written articles on whole campaigns. If you want to expand, goodness knows there is plenty to go at, I assume even within the ACW. Eg the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War is only C class. Etc. Or specialise in something completely different. You have the skills; you do not, so far as I can tell, have limitations re the size of conflict you do or could tackle. In my first year of activity I managed 4 ACRs and 1 FAC - and that last only by a week. So you are doing much better than my first year.
Or pick a completely different time and place to write on. I knew next to nothing about the 100 YW or the PWs three and two years ago. There must be something other than ACW skirmishes in Kansas which interests you. I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm hoping to do something ambitious soon, but not sure what. And short-lived CSA units and cleaning up NN geography stubs don't quite cut ambitious for me. Might take a crack at Battle of Champion Hill or some orbats. If you really need help with TFA blurbs I can help out sometimes, but my prose is probably too dry to be overly useful. Also, the closest thing I've actually got to covering a whole campaign is the aftermath and background sections of battle articles. I generally only have one or two sources about a single campaign (exceptions being Price's Raid and Vicksburg) so I don't quite feel like that's enough to build a campaign GA on. Hog FarmBacon 03:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Gog, would you be interested in writing the articles related to the Third Macedonian War (171-167 BC), with the battles of Callinicus and Pydna? The current articles are just paraphrases of Livy, but I have in pdf a very good and recent source: Paul Burton Rome and the Third Macedonian War (2017). There were four battles at most during the war so it may be easier to promote it to a featured topic that the Second Punic War. Unfortunately, the main sources for the the first two Macedonian Wars are the very expensive History of Macedonia by NGL Hammond and the Commentaries on Livy by John Briscoe. Both are also useful for the 3rd MW, but aren't as detailed (Hammond) or consistent (Briscoe) as Burton's book. T8612(talk) 15:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
T8612, oof! I see what you mean. I would quite like to, but I have no sources on this conflict which would be useful past GAN, and I have plenty of other things on my To Do list. Let me put them on my "Thinking About It" list and have a hunt to see what usable sources there are on line. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Take a look at Burton's book. T8612(talk) 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
T8612: OK, that's on my to do list, but it may take a while to work its way to the top. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, nothing urgent though. Take your time. T8612(talk) 03:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry December
Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Have a great time over the holidays. Keep up the good work in all that you do. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 18:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Lee Vilenski, and a very merry Christmas to you too. Keep those improvemens coming. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
'Tis the season
The battle of Calais, from Froissart's Chronicles. On Christmas Eve, Geoffrey de Charney's treachery was revealed to Edward III, leading to the Battle of Calais. Hopefully your Christmas eve is calmer
Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. It's been a wild year, and I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your contributions and for the role you play in making Wikipedia as good as it can be. Gog, you really are one of my favorite users here, and I've benefited greatly from your advisement on countless articles. I have great respect for the sheer amount and quality of work you do. It was a pleasure interacting with you this year. I wish you and your loved ones all the best this December and in the years to come. Cheers, Eddie891TalkWork 19:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC) PS: Do you remember the Battle of Calais? One of our first interactions, If memory serves-- the bit about it being around Christmas has always stood out to me-- it's a christmas battle, like Die Hard is a Christmas movie.
Hello there Eddie, and a very festive holiday season to you and to yours. Thank you for the the kind thought and you have me blushing with your generous comments. You shouldn't forget all of the input you make into Wikipedia.
Yes, I remember you picking up the GAN and making what I thought were unusually insightful and helpful comments. Then being first up at FAC with a whole list of further useful suggestions for improvement. Your subsequent claims to feel that you weren't up to FAC assessment level had me giggling, rolling my eyes and shaking my head.
No images, fancy backgrounds or fancy code in those curly bracket things. Just a boring old plain text note wishing you a very peaceful Christmas season, and a Better New Year. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ealdgyth, and a very merry Yuletide to you too. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
FAC source reviews
@Buidhe, Nikkimaria, Ian Rose, and Ealdgyth:, SandyGeorgia has flagged up an issue at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American logistics in the Northern France campaign/archive1 which I think could do with some further discussion away from that FAC, and possibly, initially, away from FAC altogether - at least initially. (Obviously, if itis agreed that there is an issue worth community discussion it needs to be posted there.) Sandy, re the ACR issue, can you hold fire on that? Once we have got somewhere with this discussion, we can discuss it in detail on the MilHist talk page. I will wish to do this anyway, but would prefer one thing at a time.
Sandy has developed qualms about various aspects of the sourcing of an experienced nominator. Far from the first time this has happened, eg see my very own Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Third Punic War/archive1. Specifically, as I understand it, questions are being raised as to:
Should there be at least some source spot checking even for nominations by repeat nominators? If so, how much? (As a minimum)
To what extent should source reviews be expected to cover whether an article is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, as opposed to a more limited, and so potentially PoV, coverage?
Comments are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
No prob, but two things: a) I moved the continuation of the discussion to talk, and b) concerned this is the third time I have had to dig in when there were obvious red flags (and that is a rather unpleasant position to be in :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I always try to check as many sources as I can, and if possible look for additional sources. Not all source reviewers (at either FAC or MILHIST ACR), however, are equally thorough and in some cases you get "I don't know anything about this subject, but the formatting is correct and I don't see anything obviously unreliable being cited, so I'll give it a pass". Overall, we would be better off spending more time on sourcing and content than fiddling with prose and MOS issues, in my opinion. And while MILHIST ACR is often a good gauge of quality, there's no infallible review process. (t · c) buidhe 18:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for responding directly to my concern, Buidhe, but I am going to respect Gog's request that I "hold fire" until he tells me it's my turn :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I would also support making source checks a requirement for all FACs, not just first time nominations. (t · c) buidhe 18:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, that was just re the ACR issues. Feel free to chip in here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Personally I always do at least a limited spot check when I do a source review. (Not that I do that many.) Even if I know nothing at all about the topic. And regardless of how much faith I have in the nominators. Eg with Buidhe's Greek case or SusunW's Women's poll tax capmpaign. I would encourage this, or even consider making it mandatory for all source reviews. Possibly we could consider an RFC if we agree and can come up with some suitable wording?
I am aware that source reviews are something of a bottleneck at FAC, and that anything which deters reviewers from starting one or increases the time of each one and so reduces the total number done, means that otherwise deserving nominations are likely to be archived. So regardless of what the potential benefits might be perceived to be re changes in this area, I am always wary.
I think that the lack of "an article is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" is something we are going to have to live with. If we made this a requirement, I feel sure that a large number of FACs would never receive source reviews at all. IMO it would require a source reviewer to have a better grasp of the potential sources than a nominator, and that is just not going to happen in a lot of cases.
Neutrality issues specifically with regards to sourcing are unlikely to be caught by source reviewers who do not specialize in the subject area, because without that background it would take a heck of a lot of research to flag non-obvious issues. While I don't think it would be a bad thing to spotcheck more often than we do, I'm not convinced that that would typically address this particular problem - IME more often the issue in this area is choice of sources rather than text-source integrity. Plus currently we do not, and I do not think it is feasible, check every single source as part of a spotcheck, so non-widespread problems of that type are not guaranteed to be caught even in cases where a spotcheck is performed.
On 1c more generally: the answer to Gog's question will vary depending on the breadth of the topic area. For a narrow topic where only three or four sources exist, if published sources that have not been cited exist a source reviewer has a good shot at finding them, assuming they are decently indexed. For a broad topic, the question is never going to be "do other sources exist", it's going to be "do other sources that should be included exist", and that's much harder to evaluate. Again, if the source reviewer doesn't have a background in the topic area, this would take them a heck of a lot of research.
For a related case study, take a look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Beaver/archive2. This is a 1c question more related to comprehensiveness/coverage than neutrality, but highlights similar issues. There are sources out there that have not been cited. Should they be cited? There is disagreement on that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
As I've said before (although I can't remember where), I think strict compliance with "everything needs a full source review" would be counter-productive. A lot of FAs form natural series that are all written by the same author(s) using the same sources; if Star Trek, Star Trek 2, Star Trek 3 and Star Trek 4 all check out, I'm not going to lose too much sleep worrying that the same author is trying to pull a fast one when they submit Star Trek 5 and Star Trek 6. Given the limited number of people who are able and willing to do source reviews (a very specialist skill, since to do it well you need both to know where to find often very obscure sources, but to know how to spot potentially contentious claims even when you know nothing about the topic), trying to enforce "everything needs to be fully reviewed" would just lead to the FAC backlog ballooning to unworkable lengths. There are also purely practical issues, particularly on more obscure topics. For a surprising number of FAs, the main sources are either in foreign languages or are extremely hard to find (for instance, my William Etty series is all about a person whose most important biography has been out of print since 1955); there are ways to check an obscure source when it's necessary, but if it has to be done every time then the handful of people with full access to copyright libraries are going to get very fed up, very quickly. ‑ Iridescent 07:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
(adding) I think and always have thought that 1c is completely meaningless on all but the most niche of topics. It would literally be impossible for anyone to conduct "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" on any large topic. (The example I usually use is that the Bibliography of British Railway History—which covers a single topic in a single country and only goes up to 1995—comes in at 1884 pages and lists a little over 20,000 significant books. Even for an ultra-niche railway article like Brill Tramway there are no doubt significant sources that I omitted; for a broader topic like London Underground there are probably easily over a thousand directly relevant books, and that's before we even consider the academic journals, popular magazines, and websites.) In my opinion, whatever the good intent behind it WIAFA 1c is just a mechanism by which the FAC regulars can gatekeep against editors or topics who are wikipolitically out of favor. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Iridescent, personally I agree with you re the balance between getting source reviews done at all and just how thoroughly non-first nominations are source reviewed. And that currently we get it more or less right. But just because I like the status quo didn't/doesn't mean that it may not be appropriate to seek broader input. So thanks for your detailed comments.
Re 1c: I don't think that I had previously engaged my brain over it, but having done so am inclined to agree with you. We could always endeavour to have it changed, if we had a suggested wording to change it to. Possibly it just needs "thorough and" removing? Or the equivalent at A class is "The article is comprehensive ... it neglects no major facts or details" "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
That A-class equivalent is 1b, not 1c. I would suggest determining an answer to your first question (spotchecking frequency) independent of this whole discussion, since the issues most likely to be caught there are not these ones. And then for your second question, look at changing criteria and/or changing expectations for source reviewers vs content experts. (As I said, personally I feel the kinds of issues prompted by this discussion are most likely to be caught by the latter). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) From my experience with content promotion, how the spirit of the FA criteria seems to be is that the most significant sources need to be included for FA (but not for GA) and that all relevant viewpoints and details should be included, but not that all sources need to be used. There's always going to be some editorial decision-making, and it does make some difficulty as determining if there are any have-to-use sources (such as Ed Bearss for the Vicksburg campaign requires some background knowledge. I personally think that spot checks should be strongly encouraged, as even articles that appear to be okay can have massive source-text integrity issues - look at the talk page of Battle of Tippecanoe, an old FA being sent through FAR. I don't think its feasible to include a hardcoded requirement that source checks should always be done, but I think there should be an expectation for nominators that reviewers may request scans of paywalled or offline sources. One recommendation for determining source comprehensiveness would be to also check the bibliographies of the sources you're spot-checking - if all of the cited sources include a specific source, then it's likely that that source is needed for FA comprehensiveness. Hog FarmBacon 18:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
(Outdenting because I can and I'm bouncing through Kentucky in a semi truck... so I'm not even going to try to figure out where to stick this). I have long complained (quietly but... still complained) about the over emphasis on prose and under emphasis on sourcing at FAC. To be utterly frank.. I burned out on source reviewing and the few times I've tried to get back to it... it's only gotten worse. There's not much support for "higher" sourcing standards from other reviewers (I often would bring up serious issues with sourcing and then have other reviewers waltz in and support when there were glaring sourcing problems brought up in the review... talk about demoralizing!) or nominators. And the trend towards expecting the reviewres to bring the article up to standards in the FAC is .. concerning. On the other hand, without more reviewers willing to stick to their guns and oppose, as a coord, I can't exactly supervote and not promote an article with numerous supports and no opposes. I am all for stricter source reviews... but it'll burn you out without support from the coords (i'm willing!) and other reviewers. ANd it certainly won't make you friends. I'll try to get to some these coming weeks while out on the road - assuming that I can keep internet access and that the elderly laptop survives the bouncing. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, I don't see why the coordinators shouldn't be supportive. What did you have in mind by way of "support"? I am not over-surprised that subsequent reviewers support after a source oppose or similar - they will probably be looking at different aspects of the criteria. But the coordinators and the more experienced reviewers know that all of them need to be met. Meeting 95% to a high standard but, say, PoVing by being selective with your sourcing still gets you archived.
well, to take a concern I've had and expressed to you - the Classical WikiProject's fascination with using and sourcing things to ancient sources - that's something that just gets excused at FAC. They genuinely don't seem to think they are using primary sources like historians would, instead of being encyclopedia editors and using secondary sources. So if you try to get that brought up in a source review - you get no where because you get piled up on by all the folks saying "but this is how we do it at the Classical project". I've also run into issues with more pop culture articles where folks seem to think that interviews on unreliable/dodgy websites have to be reliable because they are "just interviews". And a LOT of time there's not really any effort to evaluate sources against the actual "high quality" criteria and sources that barely meet the regular WP:RS requirement for the entire site are considered "good enough" for FAC. Want more whining? Heh. It's not fun to be a source reviewer if you're doing your job right. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Ealdgyth: primary sources for classical articles - you flagged this up with me a while ago - before I was a coordinator - and I have been watching for it since. I don't recall seeing any instances this year - if I had, I can't imagine why I didn't oppose. As someone who has recently had a round dozen classical FACs without - I think - a single primary source, direct any such cases to me. Primary sources of course do have their, limited, role; but I take a dim view of them. If people have rubbish sourcing then I am happy to go power mad and say I don't care what is "how we do it", but in this case anyone who wishes to argue the toss with an editor who has more classical FACs this year than the rest of Wikipedia put together is welcome to try. More than a bare handful of "Polybius" and we should archive first and listen to their bleating when the body has cooled.
Can a similar attitude to obviously naff websites and interviews not be used? We're not their mothers; it's not our job to take them by the hand and make them move their lips while they read through the MoS! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
(ec) I haven't noticed any this year but I'm mostly referring to past situations. There's also issues with too much reliance on newspapers to source historical articles, some usage of archival sources for information, too much "close to doing a historians job" with using primary sources, etc. All these are from 2018 or earlier ... the moving kinda took out me keeping a close eye on FAC until this spring when I took up coord duties. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, so it looks as if we may have beaten the classical primary sources into submission. Archives - I remember using some in my first ever GAN, but don't think I have since. It is well established that they are not allowed. There are occasional cases where personally I might let one go though. Newspapers: less clear cut. I do take your point of editors wanting to play at being historians - I can relate to that. The idea of "tertiary source" seems to be elusive.
What we can do is exchange information among ourselves, be tough when we find it, and flag up clearly to the community that it is not going to be accepted. And if you don't like it, don't whine at us, go get the MoS changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I assume that the answer, or at least a partial solution, to nominations being dragged up to scratch during FAC is to encourage formal Opposes - I can think of a number of ways of doing this - andthe coordinators rapidly archiving when this happens. Beaver and Die Hard seem cases in point. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The issue with hesitation to do source reviewers can be addressed by encouraging splitting it up. E.g. one person addresses the print sources, another person does source checks, a third looks at web sources. That way, people who maybe don't have the time or confidence to complete the entire thing can still contribute. This might also encourage more thoroughness rather than superficial checking it off. (t · c) buidhe 18:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I like this idea. When first timers get the spot checking and the formatting done by different reviewers it seems to work well. Does your proposed split mean that those "address[ing] ... the print sources [and] ... look[ing] at web sources" won't be "do[ing] source checks"? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Ugh. I do not like this idea. Often you can't get an idea of if there are problems with the sourcing without looking at the totality of them. And to be frank, you kinda almost have to be immersed IN sourcing to get good at source reviews. It's a constant failing that too many folks aren't concerned with source integrity - i.e. with keeping a source WITH the information it supports. Copyediting is notorious for moving stuff around and away from its sources as well as well-meant-but-unhelpful rewordings that change the meaning away from what the source supports. So you'll have a bit of information that is cited to a book, but maybe it originally was from a website - if you split up the source reviews this way - you end up with stuff left in limbo. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I feel like everything above is missing the issue which brought this to concern, which is missing or unrepresented sources leading to an imbalance and POV. No amount of checking sources that are used will turn those up. You have to go out and look for them. C.J. Dick's POV was that "Eisenhower was wrong"; scores of other sources have other opinions. I notice Buidhe makes reviews to that effect, at least at FAR. In the three POV FACs I have encountered, it was the lack of viewpoints that created the POV problem. I think a lot of this comes down to reviewers being hesitant these days to do anything more than a cursory look at prose nitpicking because of some past treatment of reviewers who did more. I am also concerned that once a nominator hits a certain number of FAs, their nominations are no longer closely scrutinized; we assume they know their stuff, and don't dig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, that's two (both good, but IMO separate) points. I for one have addressed both above. On the first I wrote:
I think that the lack of "an article is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" is something we are going to have to live with. If we made this a requirement, I feel sure that a large number of FACs would never receive source reviews at all. IMO it would require a source reviewer to have a better grasp of the potential sources than a nominator, and that is just not going to happen in a lot of cases.
On the second:
Personally I always do at least a limited spot check when I do a source review. (Not that I do that many.) Even if I know nothing at all about the topic. And regardless of how much faith I have in the nominators. Eg with Buidhe's Greek case or SusunW's Women's poll tax capmpaign. I would encourage this, or even consider making it mandatory for all source reviews. Possibly we could consider an RFC if we agree and can come up with some suitable wording?
But then threw in a proviso which I won't bore everyone by repeating. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's all intertwined for me :) The fundamental failure in the three MILHIST POV articles I have encountered was 1c: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. They each took one book (Dinges) or one POV (Dick) and crafted entire premises around them. They each overlooked scores of high quality sources easily found (in one case, by my knowledge of where to look re Noriega, and in the most recent, by simply going to the books at hand in my basement). Spotchecking for source-to-text integrity is a separate but related matter. I will never accept that we should roll over on 1c: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. That is where we find POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I don't thing that thee and me are far apart on this, if at all. The current system is ad hoc and subject to missing a lot of potential 1c breaches, but I don't hear any mention of a "better", or even different, system to replace it. If you have a suggestion, I am all ears. (Which is an unfortunate image.)
Contrariwise, perhaps we could incrementally improve things by reinforcing/supporting reviewers who do identify such issues and by, as coordinators, being ready to promptly archive when well founded cases of non-1c'ness (is that the correct technical term?) are identified and formal Opposes made. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
There's no "rule" that only first-time noms get spotchecks; if coords could find enough people to do spotchecks (a big "if"), they could ask for one on every single nom, no RfC required. But as Sandy notes, that won't deal with 1c. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of all ears :) Agree with Nikki, and wish I could offer more solutions instead of complaints. OK, what if ... evidence of one instance of serious sourcing problems led to Coords asking for a spotcheck AND 1c check on even repeat nominators for that nomination? Not wedded to that idea, but just something to get discussion started. Because I found repeat instances of same problems occurring at Noriega. I have additionally been frustrated that current nominators don't really understand how we use the different terms referring to citation consistency/formatting, source spotcheck for text-to-source integrity and plagiarism, and 1c, thorough representation of the literature. That was a particular issue at Biblical criticism, which was possibly never understood by the nominator, who seemed to become more and frustrated at not understanding what limited checks different editors had done. We never even got to 1c, where I had serious questions about unrepresented sources. Generally, I always agree with faster archival ... and I have done my best to do my part to get Peer review going so we have a place to send them for rapid turnaround, we hope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Mike says I have done 24 source reviews. I don't think that I have not done at least some level of spot checking on all of them. (I shall no doubt be proven wrong on that, ah well.) If a lack of bodies to spot check every FAC is an issue - and it is - then what can we do to encourage more than currently? Are there any incremental steps which could edge us in that direction? There seems to be a consensus that we would like to be doing more spot checking of established nominators
A random thought: perhaps an editor's freedom from spot checks has a time limit? Or is only good for so many FACs? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, I have shirked my spot-checking duties. Because I came from the era where I simply had the luxury of relying on Ealdgyth, who became a poor abused soul as now is Nikkimaria. Gog, when you come across one within my capabilities (no Jstor), ping me to the FAC, and I will start to do my part as I am able. The other things I wanted to get off the ground are somewhat (eeeek) under control. But first I have to submit some ArbCom evidence, which I have put off 'til the last few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
On the idea of "only so many FACs", or a time limit, I regretfully inform you that anything that is set in hard-and-fast terms at FAC will eventually be gamed. BTDT. Keep it vague, within Coord discretion. (Which reminds me, WikiCup is about to start up again so we must discuss what to do about appalling quid-pro-quo review advertising that took hold per 2020 WikiCup.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Gog, naively I wonder if making spotchecking more common might encourage more people to get comfortable doing them. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gog, do you think I can reorganise the list of History FAs here? It is difficult to look for something in that wall of blue. I'm thinking of four sections (Ancient, Medieval, Early Modern, Modern). Strangely, Paleocene is in History, while it should go in Geology. T8612(talk) 01:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
That kind of concern belongs at the talk page of WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
T8612, I could, after asking if there was community consensus for it, but I imagine that whatever you are after could be tracked down more easily at MilHist. Go to most MilHist pages, click on "Task Forces" in the navigation box to the right, select the/a one of interest, and scroll to the FAs for that task force in alphabetical order. Eg here. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, albeit it's only about the military history FAs. T8612(talk) 03:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
FAC
Would I be able to re-nominate in less than two weeks? Say, in one week? LittleJerry (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
LittleJerry, that would depend on the circumstances. If you could demonstrate that you had arguably addressed all of the issues which caused it to be archived, then a coordinator may agree to an earlier re-nomination. But I can't judge that until I see why an article was archived and what work has been done to it since.
I assume that you have beaver in mind? Given that its nomination is still open and fresh comments are being posted, thinking of re-nominating seems premature; it is still live. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Silver Wiki for coming in second place in the 2020 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions throughout the year. Eddie891TalkWork 13:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs·email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Replacing deleted articles?
Thanks for the barnstar - always good for morale! Perhaps you can give me some advice since my former mentor Buckshot06 seems to have gone off the grid? Firstly, on three occasions recently I have been preparing to add some material on artillery regiments, only to find that the pages on the parent units have been deleted. These were: 1st Dumbartonshire Rifle Volunteers, 3rd (Ulster) Searchlight Regiment, Royal Artillery, and 6th Cyclist Battalion, Suffolk Regiment. From what I can discover, these were deleted because of serious copyright offences by the author, not because of quality. I have sufficient material to provide new articles on these units, but what is the protocol: should I go ahead, or wait a certain length of time in case the original articles might be reinstated on appeal?
I'm happy to go on quietly filling gaps in wiki's coverage, but these are murky waters! RegardsRickfive (talk)
Hi Rickfive, no problem - you certainly earned it. I am far from knowledgeable on these matters, so I shall copy in a couple of wiser heads than mine - Girth Summit and Harrias. I also note that you may get more informed assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Teahouse.
Re the previously deleted articles, if it were me, I would simply recreate them, adding a brief note on the talk page.
Re the duplicates, they sound to my ignorant ears as if they need either merging or speedily deleting under A10. Which would depend, it seems to me, on how much, if any, new, RSed, content the new article contains.
Hopefully this gives you pointers in the right direction, but never having flagged an article for either merge or SD I am reluctant to go much further with any suggestions.
Wiser head than yours? Don't know about that Gog, but I guess I at least have the advantage of x-ray specs that let me see deleted stuff.
Rickfive, the Dumbartonshire Rifles and the Ulster Searchlight articles were deleted because they were created by a banned user - see WP:G5. Don't know about the copyright concerns, but I don't know the history of the case. There would be no problem with you recreating articles on those subjects if you have the interest and sources. I can't see an old article for the Cyclists, perhaps I'm looking at the wrong address? Again though, I can't see any reason why you shouldn't recreate the articles.
Regarding the merge, if we have two articles about the same subject then merging is the right course of action; it's not something I've ever been involved in, but I bet if I type WP:MERGE the link will be blue... Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
The Guidance Barnstar
You know that there are many things I would not even attempt without your mentoring and guidance. I truly appreciate the effort you put in and the humor you bring to stressful situations, which lighten the load considerably. I will never be able to adequately express my gratitude, just know that I am beholden to you. SusunW (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey Gog
So I guess you thought it prudent to overlook my comment here, which was probably a kindness on your part, so thank you. I was pretty crushed at the time. Do you still want to work with me on your article, or have you changed your mind? I still feel the same way about working with you, I would be honored, but I understand if you'd rather not. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I think I must have offended you more deeply than I have understood. I am genuinely sorry for that as it was not my intention. I know that you do not deserve that. Please forgive my bull-in-the-china-shop ways. I am often socially inept and clueless. Feel free to yell at me all I deserve. I'm sure I would benefit from being yelled at by you. I am truly sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC) has extended an olive branch of peace.
Oops. It is I who owe you an apology. I saw the red bell and clicked through to your message. Decided that it would need more than an off the cuff response so I would just finish what I was doing. Then one thing led to another and I forgot. I have got myself over-committed on Wikipedia and non-routine things keep slipping through the cracks. Sorry.
Re the article. Yes, I would still like to work with with you on it, if you would still like to work with me after my carelessness. I have done little work on it since we last spoke, and that mostly on the religious side. I do have some sources lined up for "my" side of things though. It is now bedtime, my time, and I have RL commitments for much of tomorrow. I shall try to make a start on it tomorrow evening, and either way I shall let you know how I am doing. If I don't, a firm smack round the head with that olive branch should gain my attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, thank goodness! I understand real life interfering with online life and vice versa. My mother is ill and I am probably going to have to fly up there and take care of her, so I will not have tons of time for WP for the next few weeks. I can read up though. I'll work on that. I don't know much about the Byzantine empire, so this will be a good opportunity for me to learn more. Thanx Gog. I'm glad you are still speaking to me. You and Mike Christie were two of the good things to come out of my debacle. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 33 reviews between October and December 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Congrats for the upcoming Mercenary war FA main page appearance and thank you for all your work. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Wow! Someone cares. Thank you Elias Ziade, much appreciated.
Belated Holiday Greetings to you and yours. You are next in line for an Eddy (next week) but I was hoping you would relinquish your place in the Q for those from last year. A couple of new ones were added today which eased my mind. New noms are always welcome. Thanks for all you do!!! ―Buster7☎ 18:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Buster7 and the same to you. As I had been told not to peek at Editor Retention I haven't been making any nominations, although I could see that noms were getting short. I shall see if I can top the list up. I'm not sure that I understand your second point, but I am happy to relinquish my place if it helps the project or you. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank You Gog. Much appreciated!!!!―Buster7☎ 22:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Siege of Guines
Hi Gog, I noticed that the disambiguation article I created yesterday is linked to your task page. Which siege were you referring to as a potential article? Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Newm30, the first. French unsuccessfully besieging the English. I have created it as a stub. I'll tidy it up when I get the chance. And have added a link to it in one of my FACs. Nice work by the way. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
No worries. Wishing you a Happy New Year. Always happy to help out where our spheres of interest overlap. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Dreamsnake
This has had two source reviews - if you're still looking for something in that regard, would you be able to specify what that is? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm probably going to close the review and nominate the article for FA, do you want time to add any more comments? Amitchell125 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Amitchell125, I was waiting for things to quieten down a bit before chipping in. Plus I have been pretty busy with other stuff. If you think that it is ready, nominate it and I'll give it an early review. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I will. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Bloody good effort!
The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
In recognition of the 128 incredibly incisive and helpful Milhist GAN, ACR, PR and FA reviews you did in 2020, I hereby award you the Premium Reviewer Barnstar. Bloody good effort! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Mercenary War
Hi Gog! Can you pls check the minor tweaks I just did on Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War) - if they are OK I'll do same for tomorrow's TFA? JennyOz (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
They look fine Jen, how could you doubt yourself? "materiel" is definitely going to get 'corrected' tomorrow! Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Done! If it gets corrected often, I'll link it! ( I've been a bit despondent about doing reviews lately ... so many discussions in so many places about so many problems. Might get back on the horse on the weekend!) Regards, JennyOz (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Jen. I know just what you mean. Personally I more or less ignore them until and unless they generate an actual change. It would be great to have some of your superb reviews at FAC. I have recently been on a FAC reviewing run, and on my 22nd from the past 17 days, despite now being a FAC coordinator. Or perhaps because of. I dunno. As you have just looked at a couple of Mercenary War articles, you might want to cast an eye over my current FAC: Battle of the Saw - you generously reviewed it at ACR.
How are you keeping anyway? How is the brave new virus-ridden world treating you? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I saw Saw note a few days ago. (You're a good salesperson.) I'll check the noms page. I know there's one there for ND and another for PM I am keen to do too.
I am keeping well, thanks for asking. Australia has done relatively well - a combination of island nation, common sense compliance and leaders listening to medical experts. A little bit of political bickering re state border shutdowns but it seems every breakout is quickly dealt with. So, so glad as always to be in the Lucky Country. I shudder when I see stats from elsewhere. Wherever you are, keep safe. See you at FAC! JennyOz (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you today for the article Mercenary War, introduced: "The First Punic War ended after 23 years with a Carthaginian defeat. Still a great power, Carthage arranged to pay off its army and ship its members home. One botched attempt to shortchange the troops later and the army was blockading Carthage and its African vassals had risen in revolt to join the mutineers with 70,000 volunteers. The war was fought with unusual savagery, even for the time." - That's what we see on Wikipedia's 20 birthday ;) - I have a director to offer for DYK (next set), had a conductor 5 years ago, and the complete works by Bach 10 years ago, all less bloody. Today's intention: not to end the day without a FAC nom. I'm procrastinating, but Jerome Kohl, the effort of many, was worth it, - more help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
this edit you made on the Exersice tiger page.
[1]
Your reference wasn't clear as to what it was, article, book etc but I found it here. [2]
It mentions Operation Tiger 11 pages after the page you reference but says "The incident passed without repercussions." The document does not connect Tiger to that one sentence on page 259 saying he had an increased interest in Normany in any fashion. It makes no judgment at all on the reason. The document does not connect the to things at all. This is the problem with people using sources that are hard to check, like you saying what you wrote was on that page. Actually what you wrote was a total fabrication on your part and i want to know why you did it. If I missed something point it out. Jackhammer111 (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC).
Hi Jackhammer111. Firstly can I suggest that you reread WP:AGF, and then WP:NPA. Secondly, as I made that edit more than three years ago, you won't be surprised to hear that I have no recollection of it. You are entirely correct that the source given does not support the text; apologies for that and thank you for pointing it out. Going back through the sources I have to hand, I suspect that I should have given Ambrose (D-Day, 2002). I also should probably have been less emphatic, but I was a newbie editor then. I have rephrased and reattributed. See what you think. If it is not to your taste, feel entirely free to change or revert. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Less empathetic? Previously you used one sentence in a 450 page document and fabricated a connection between Slapton Sands and the Cotentin beach and that one sentence. Now you come back and use that one sentence about Hitler's insistence and you use essentially the same words that you used before. And here's where it gets dicey. I found the reference in the book that you used. And this brings up a sensitive topic. Popular historians are not infallible. Check the reference the author uses to draw that conclusion. There is what I might call an incestuous relationship between the source you used before and the source you're using now, and its author using the same one you used...it's the Harrison book cross-channel invasion and even references the same page that you have admitted does not support what you wrote. It doesn't support what he wrote either and it doesn't matter That he put it in a book. The cross-channel Invasion book does not claim any connection between exercise tiger and Hitler shifting priorities and doesn't even claim that Hitler knew about exercise tiger. I'll quote back the sentence "Whether Hitler saw and reacted to these naval estimates or whether he had access to other information, in late April his interest in Normandy increased and he began to insist strongly on the need to reinforce the defense there. " that comes after there's a discussion about the naval estimates and If you read the naval estimates there is no mention of exercise tiger or its location in those Naval estimates. For the sake of discussion, I want to point out something else I noticed that Ambrose did that I find disturbing. He added the word "lower" to Normandy. The cross-channel Invasion book doesn't say lower Normandy. Normandy is a large area that includes the entire Cotentin peninsula. In March Hitler concludes that it will be on the Cotentin and Brittany peninsulas. Then it says in April he says, Normandy. It looks to me like they are in exactly the state of confusion but the Allies Intended them to be in. I believe I have read elsewhere that Hitler did reinforce the upper peninsula thinking it would be Cherbourg and even diverted troops to the Brittany peninsula. We know in reality he did very little to reinforce the lower Normandy. If you recall Rangers were surprised when they scaled The Cliffs at Pointe du hoc find the big guns were gone and there weren't a lot of troops there. The only guns that needed silencing at Pointe du hoc where's some 88 about three or four hundred yards inland that were firing east Southeast across the peninsula at Omaha which was four or five miles away. I've been there. Something else Ambrose did disturbs me. Remember, he's using the same source you did which doesn't even conclude that he ever knew anything about exercise tiger yet Ambrose goes on to praise Hitler saying he had an amazing ability to store topographical information. Talk about unsupported bologna. It's a good thing for us Hitler had no special genius and that he acted like he was a military genius despite having no military education having never risen above Lance corporal when he was in the military And yet here is Ambrose claiming without evidence that Hitler recognized the similarity and reinforced "lower" Normandy of which he did such a lousy job of that it becomes where we succeed. I think it's clear that if the Germans hadn't guessed wrong they would have thrown us back into the sea. Look up what Ambrose writes on the rest of the page and the next. He hasn't got a clue as to what Hitler knew or didn't know
While what I wrote to you before and I'm writing to you now is sternly worded I don't consider it a personal attack. If you're objecting to the word fabrication and I stand by the word because you reach the conclusion that you put on that page that was not supported by your reference. I'm sure you know Wikipedia policy on original research. A lot of men died needlessly in this rehearsal. We shouldn't be saying that this caused more needless deaths on D-Day unless that's really what happened. I'd appreciate it if you were the one that removes this instead of me so it doesn't look like I've taken the second step towards an edit War. We can continue to discuss it if you like. By the way oh, this was a pain in the ass for me to research. I found a copy of the ebook that I downloaded from my library but my eReader doesn't show page numbers.. Slow and bulky. I kind of blew my day. I'm just bitching, I'm not blaming you.Jackhammer111 (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The article Battle of Rethymno you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Rethymno for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Ancient sources in FAs
Hey Gog, I'm helping out with WP:URFA/2020, and there are some very old FAs (promoted around 2006) that use Xenophon/Thucydides/etc. rather uncritically and directly as sources for historical events, rather than modern secondary sources. I have a suspiscion that heavy direct usage of the ancient writers may not be a good thing for FAs, but I thought you and @T8612: might have more experience with this area and subject, so I'd like to know y'all's opinions. Hog FarmBacon 19:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hog Farm, soon to be Sir Hog Farm. They are primary sources, and come with all of the usual warnings re primary sources. Ideally these shouldn't be directly cited to at all. I have managed a dozen ancient FAs without, I think, a single cite to a primary source, so it is not as if it is difficult. The occasional cite for a non-controversial fact, OK. More than that and a nom wouldn't get past FAC. How much in an existing FA is enough to bring an article to FAR if it isn't re-cited is a bit subjective - those that are mostly primary sourced are obviously headed there. If you would care to point me at some specific examples I could give you a horseback opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thrasybulus is the first one that comes to mind. It also has some OR and lack of citation issues, so it's probably FAR-bound anyway. I think Theramenes also is another one that needs attention. Hog FarmBacon 20:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Whole paragraphs not referenced at all. Theramenes is a decent C class and needs putting out of its misery. Thrasybulus might be saved if someone were to put a lot of TLC into re-citing. Given the other issues it would probably be easier to rewrite it. I like to give existing FAs a big benefit of the doubt, but those two look hopeless cases. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I think Gog's already got an inkling of my opinion on using ancient primary sources for articles ... and I know I gave poor T8612 an earful/eyeful the other day. The short bit is .. it's a bad idea. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll be nominating one of the two for FAR when it turns to the 17th, as that is when my next one is open. I'd say they both need it, sadly. I know you may not want to, but you're always welcome to join any discussions over at FAR, as well. Hog FarmBacon 21:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I've told Sandy I just don't have the time. I'm stretched thin enough as it is. (I SHOULD be working on non-wiki-horse research... not poking my nose in here) Ealdgyth (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hog Farm Unlike Gog, I don't think that primary sources shouldn't be used at all, there's even a policy on this WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, but they should not be "alone", eg. it's fine to have a reference to Thucydides, who is a very important source, but there should be at least another reference to a modern source next to it. The best way to check whether primary sources are used correctly is to jump to the references section. If you see—as with Thrasyboulos—four successive references to Thucydides and then one to Xenophon (notes 11-15), you can be sure that it's not going to be good enough for FA. I think I told you that you can also nominate Pericles, Aspasia, Alcibiades, and Demosthenes for the same reason.T8612(talk) 22:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@T8612: I'm not opposed to use of primary sources either; I've even used official ACW military reports lightly in all four of my FAs. However, since ancient history was often of a quite different stripe than modern history (for instance Josephus, I've read his entire Jewish Antiquities), I also think the ancient sources should be used sparingly, and in conjunction with modern assessments when used. Hog FarmBacon 22:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
FAC Mentoring Follow-Up
Hello! I contacted you a little over a month ago about getting Ted Kaczynski to FA. I've gone through your suggestions and had a Copyedit done by the GOCE, and I think the article may be ready for FAC. Twofingered Typist's edit was wonderful, and they ironed out quite a few issues in the article. Let me know what you think as far as how to proceed. Thanks! AviationFreak💬 17:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi AviationFreak, it looks in decent shape on a skim. (Neo-luddite is dup-linked.) If it were me, I would put it in for Wikipedia:Peer review. If you do, I will give it another look over for copy edit, proof read, MoS, adherence to source etc. But the main object will be to get a broader view on breadth, undue, range, section order etc, and to see if any one flags up additional sources. PR has changed a little recently, so I am pinging the inestimable SandyGeorgia in case there is anything else you need to need to know and a general all round good person to assist with this stage. (The subject of the article has some unfortunate resonances for her, so don't push if she is unresponsive - query me instead.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the PR idea. Will avoid the parts that make me see red ;) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Listed at PR and added to the PR FAC Sidebar. Thank you! AviationFreak💬 19:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for adding it to the sidebar, AviationFreak! That will help me remember to get to it. I am so far behind right now that I despair, so if I am not there within a few weeks, please pester me at my talk page. PS, have you read User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content? It is mostly oriented at medical editors, but lays out some basics for everyone. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Siege of Guines (1352)
On 19 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Guines (1352), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1352 Siege of Guines reignited the Hundred Years' War after six years of uneasy truce? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Guines (1352). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Siege of Guines (1352)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Hi Gog, are you still copy-editing Jupiter for the GOCE? The request at REQ has been marked as working since 6 January. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Apologies Baffle gab1978, two weeks! My goodness, that's bad. I reserved this, and also flagged up my involvement at PR, with all good intentions. But now that I am a FAC coordinator, and given my new role at TFA, my Wikipedia time just seems to evaporate. I think that, after copy editing 500,000 words over three years for GOCE, it is time for me to admit that I can no longer maintain my active involvement. I have struck my "Working" at GOCE R, and apologies again. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
No worries Gog, and thanks for striking. It's a big planet to copy-edit; far too much gravity to get sucked into (and watch out for that Great Red Spot!). :D I miss seeing your name on the requests page; thanks for all of the work you've done there and I hope you enjoy your new wiki-niches. I'm working at making myself scarce for a while... not really working, is it? ;) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive editor at FAC
Hi. I originally brought this up to Ian Rose (here at their talk page) after being advised to consult one of the project coordinators. An editor from the jazz project appears to have hijacked my nomination of this article with relentless, disparaging, uncivil comments with the intention of removing references to the genre (to which reliable sources are attributed). Their comments section has become bloated, intractable, and unapproachable, and I am worried it's a blight on the nomination and might alienate serious reviewers from taking on the article. I've cited issues with their comments at Ian Rose's talk page, and this latest comment shows the editor will not back down. So I am now here. isento (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I even tried to distinguish the entirely genre/jazz-focused section by titling it "Genre comments by...", and the editor reverted me with the edit summary "these comments transcend genre" ([7]). The editor is indulging, escalating, and imploding with each comment. It is disturbing. I can't recall ever encountering such a singular resistance and personalized determination to force one's agenda or ideology at an FAC. Maybe in general. isento (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
He referred to one reliably sourced statement as "a bullshit statement in a bullshit article" ([8]) isento (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I've perused a few of the FA-reviewing guidelines, including this one, which says comments must be actionable, otherwise they won't be considered in determining a nomination's promotion. Their comments are not even approachable. I hesitated to respond again to that editor, because they can't seem to control their aggression and attitude. I feel some kind of intervention is necessary at this point. isento (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
An antagonistic soliloquy. That is the best way of describing what they've turned the section into. isento (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Isento: Apologies for the delayed response. The repetition of the same point and the inappropriate way in which this has been done has been noted. I understand that nominating a FAC is a stressful time - at least, mine always are - and that this sort of raising the temperature doesn't help. Let the comments made to date lie. If the reviewer makes further comments on other points respond to them normally - either editing the article or explaining why you don't. And if there is further repetition of inappropriately forceful language, please do flag it up here. @FAC coordinators: for information. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Flag it at the FAC talk page or at your talk page? Here's more since then: "If I played basketball as a kid, does that make me a basketball player for life? Or does it have a clear definition? I'm supposed to accept these mushy-headed statements as reliable sources regarding facts? That's wishful thinking, an article of faith. The will and desire to make something true although it really isn't. ... It matters to people with integrity who know how to use words properly and whose first interest is the reader. It matters because words matter. And if it's not a big deal, then why not remove it? Why fight it so hard? Therefore it must be a big deal, right? I don't know how many times I have to say this: 'elements of jazz' is not identical to jazz, and it's such a vague statement as to be meaningless. What specifically does it mean? Just like 'forays into jazz'. It allows the writer to sound elevated while saying nothing, a common tactic in music journalism. Puffery, in other words. And since when does one person's feelings determine the quality of an article? Are we done with facts?"isento (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Isento, on it. Please ignore it, hard as that may be. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up to closed FAN
"Was "Cyrenaica Command" the formal and official title?"
I just wanted to follow-up about this point. Yes, it was the formal and official title. Am I missing something in the article about that, or need to tweak something?
@EnigmaMcmxc: I had not personally come across this expression before, so I just wanted to check that it wasn't a - perfectly sensible - informal phrase. If it were, the second C needed to be lower case, that was all. As it is a proper noun, no problem. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar
You have certainly had your hand in what I would consider an insane amount of FAs and GAs. As that meme goes, "Just take my [barnstar]!"
Hoping to add to your 2021 bling TheSandDoctorTalk 05:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor Thank you, much appreciated. For still being in January my 2021 Bling Bar is accumulating nicely. I try to keep my total of GAs and FAs ticking over. Not that I'm obsessed. Oh no. I can give it up any time I want to. Any time. Yes. Any time at all. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Battle of the Saw, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Ian Ross Campbell (cropped).jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Ian Ross Campbell (cropped).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).
On 3 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Treaty of Guînes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the English and French agreed to a draft treaty in 1354 to end what was to become the Hundred Years' War, but the French reneged and the war continued for a further 101 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Treaty of Guînes. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Treaty of Guînes), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
On 5 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Kinghorn, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after losing the Battle of Kinghorn in 1332, the Earl of Fife was "full of shame" at being defeated by such a small force? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Kinghorn. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Kinghorn), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Well-deserved and excellent work. 7 of this is quite impressive. Hog FarmTalk 00:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Sourcing in your GA articles
Gog, this is just a curious question - in the GA articles that you rewrote, how did you get all the non-JSTOR sources? Were you reading a lot about them (eg. the Punic Wars) at the time, or is there a simpler way of just accessing relevant sources for a particular need? Thanks in advance. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
(Specifically, I mean the book sources.) HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
HalfdanRagnarsson, well now. I never do serious work on an article unless I own a hardback RS which covers it. Often several. This or these frequently serve as the "spine" of the article. After that Google Scholar is helpful, as is Academia. Google Books can be very helpful - sometimes - if you know how to use it, but time consuming. Sometimes books oft cited on Wikipedia or in other books or articles can be useful. Unfortunately the chaff to wheat ratio is high, one reason I like to write several articles from a similar period - to maximise the output to input. And the more articles I write on a period, the more books on it I stumble across and a virtuous cycle emerges.
Does any of that help? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
K, thanks a lot . I've been a bit hard-pressed while source-finding sometimes, which is why I asked. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
HalfdanRagnarsson, is there an article in particular that you are looking for a book source for? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Nothing immediately. I was working on the Achaean and fourth Macedonian wars till recently, but I'm on a semi-wikibreak for a few weeks to come - somewhat busy with exams. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This is actually the Second Macedonian War, but this book gives the the point of view of the Aetolian League, for which the Second Macedonian War (between Rome and Macedonia) was in fact the fourth time they got in war with Macedonia (hence the misleading title). T8612(talk) 13:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
You're mentioned, incase you didn't know and are interested in such things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you for the link. Interesting. You may care to check the number of edits I have made. That said, interesting Wikipedia article too, I shall probably do some work on it.Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
February
Thank you for your Bach reminder! I hope to get to the hymn and the discography, don't know about reception yet, really, - just today was another day of following an obituary, a very unusual one. Bach music pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The very unusual biography is now on the Main page. The hymn and the discography are expanded. I am still unhappy about having to move the discography to a separate article because one user claims that the original source for the article, from the Bach Cantata Website, is not reliable, while my evaluation seems to be shared by reliable sources, see here:
I found that by chance when looking for recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Update: the tags are gone, and Aza and Wehwalt began rewiewing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you today for Siege of Lilybaeum, introduced "For those not yet surfeited on First Punic War articles, I offer this relatively short article on Rome's nine-year-long attempt to end the war by capturing one of Carthage's last two strongholds on Sicily"! A great offer! I am sorry to report that my offer is at a hold because FS is busy elsewhere, and I (and Aza24) don't know what to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Further down on the page, there are conversations about the current arb case request - I feel I have to stay away - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) - The FAC situation looks much better. I wonder why we had a peer review ... - sorry that the FAC turned into one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations
Your DYK hook about the Battle of Kinghorn received 6,372 page views (531 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the one of most viewed hooks during the month of February and has thus earned a place on the February stats list. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty: FA Mentoring?
Dear Gog the Mild. Thank you for having made yourself available for FA mentoring! I am a novice with just over 6000 edits and one very recent GA: Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty. I now wonder about FA. The article is on the waiting list for copy-editing by GOCE. Perhaps I should also put it on the list for Peer Review, but I am a bit hesitant to ask so many people for help and time. Could you please have a quick look and tell me what you think. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Johannes, it looks to me as if there could be an FA in there. It also looks as if it will need a fair bit of work, much of it prose and MoS issues. GoCE is a fine place to start. Let's see what they make of it. Then going to PR is the obvious next move - some comments below on soaking up others' time and energy. Once that is done, assuming that feedback is positive, I would strongly recommend putting it through the Military History Project's A class review process (ACR). Have a read through a couple of reviews to get a feel for what to expect. ACR can be thought of as FAC light. Then we can discuss whether it is up to scratch for an FAC nomination. Does that make sense?
Re using others time, that is how Wikipedia works, and it is the stronger for it, and our articles are better. If this bothers you - it certainly bothers me - then you could do what I do and pay forward. I keep track of my GA, AC and FA promotions. And of the reviews I do for each of these. I try to maintain ratios of at least 2, 5 and 6 to one respectively, which reassures me that in the grand scheme of things it is roughly balancing out. Doing some reviews in advance of a nomination can help in other ways: it gives you a feel for the features of a high quality article and for what other reviewers and nominators are looking for, it prepares you for the process, which can occasionally be a little rumbustious, and it can build up some goodwill with other editors who may be more inclined to subsequently review your nomination and prevent it from timing out due to lack of reviews.
So ping me once it is out of copy edit and we will renew this discussion. In the meantime, feel free to query me about anything on your mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear Gog the Mild. Thanks for your kindness. I'll do as you say. With regard to quid-pro-quo I already have started: I did 6 GA reviews for the one I received. I found GA relatively simple. I do not see me doing GOCE copy-edits anytime soon. I am looking forward to talk to you again, but I need to wait for my turn in the GOCE queue. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC).
Hi Johannes Schade, you are quite right to avoid GoCE - they are a wonderful team and do their work purely for the joy of helping out. As you are experienced at GAN, perhaps consider doing a few reviews at ACR? As you seem interested in the ECW period, the FACs for Battle of Dunbar and Battle of Inverkeithing may be less dry than one picked at random. (The latter is current and is my nom, but this is not a solicitation for a review.
We shall speak again when GoCE release Clancarty. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
January 2021 GOCE Drive bling
The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
March 2021 Backlog Drive As you have taken part in previous GAN Backlog drives, or are a prolific GAN reviewer, you might be interested to know that the March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive starts on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month.
In order to receive notifications about future drives, sign up for the Good articles newsletter.
Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty reviewed by Twofingered Typist
Dear Gog the Mild. We are one step further. Twofingered Typist has been professional and thorough: quite a few changes. I learned a couple of things. I have tried my hand at A-Class Review: Uganda–Tanzania War by user Indy beetle. Buidhe and Eddie891 have also reviewed, but this review seems to have gone asleep. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Uganda–Tanzania War: that was good of you. I have given some of the participants a nudge. Could you ping me once you reach a decision re supporting or opposing? Thanks.
I think that you should put Clancarty in for ACR then. If it drags out you can always withdraw it and go straight for either PR or FAC, but given that it is a GA and has just gone through GoCE ACR seems reasonable. If you agree, simply nominate it. If you don't, the obvious alternative is PR. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) just a note that Indy has said they are feeling unwell, so the review may go slow for a while until they are feeling better. Best, Eddie891TalkWork 19:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear Gog the Mild. I have nominated the article for MH A-Class review as you recommended. I had some trouble with item Number 3 of the instructions, which says:
"Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after the class= or list= field)."
I added "A-Class=current" immediately after "class=GA", saved it, and never found "Additional information". I worked, however, when I moved "A-Class=current" to the very end of the template after the last task force. The explanation therefore seems to only fit cases where there are no task forces. Instruction Number 3 also forgets to mention that the would-be nominator should save. Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Battle of Inverkeithing, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Panini!, it took longer than five weeks, which I wouldn't call speedy. Faster than some, but probably about on my average. In so far as it was speedy, it was because I stole all of the good prose from stuff Girth Summit had written earlier for another FAC, which allowed be to dazzle the reviewers with my faux erudition. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
That's not exactly how I would have phrased it, but I'll take whatever kudos is on offer! GirthSummit (blether) 17:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit, if you had had a little more free time it would have been a joint nom. I am grateful that your research and prose gave me the framework to hang the article on. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Dupplin Moor 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 Legobot, on behalf of Willbb234 -- Willbb234 (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The article Battle of Dupplin Moor you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Battle of Dupplin Moor for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Willbb234 -- Willbb234 (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
WikiCup 2021 March newsletter
Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
The article Battle of Dupplin Moor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Dupplin Moor for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Willbb234 -- Willbb234 (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Are you familiar with this author? War against Nabis is an old featured article I checked for WP:URFA/2020, and I listed it as needing a featured article review if work is not done at WP:FARGIVEN. The fact that whole sections are sourced solely to Livy and the rather dated Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology are enough to warrant the FAR notice, but I'm trying to determine the full extent of the issues. Holleaux is an older source, but it's possible they could still be fine. Are you familiar with how useful that author is? Hog FarmTalk 03:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hog Farm, no, I have not come across him. He seems solid, and I would normally put reasonable faith in the CAH. But a 91 year old version? Looking at the article generally it seems completely beyond help. My suggestion would be not to spend too much time on it. It needs triaging and your valuable time allocating to FARs which have the potential to be salvaged. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
As soon as I'm not sick... sorry for dropping the ball... but got home from trip and ... promptly got sick. Am slowly coming out of it. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Not to worry Ealdgyth. I am doing some volunteer work helping a group of university students learn how to use Wikipedia. When I got to "How to use a talk page" it seemed easiest to just show them. I had intended to delete the post as soon as the session was over. But you got in first. I shall set up a separate account to work with them so it doesn't happen again. You relax and get well - RL is the important thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
If this is about source reviews at FAC... I've been meaning to get some (will probably do so this upcoming weekend), but have been distracted with ones at FLC lately. Aza24 (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your fellowship with others. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
It is my pleasure to nominate Gog The Mild to receive his second Editor of the Week Award. Gog last received this award in July 2019. The scale and quality of his contributions justify a renewed recognition. It boggles the mind how many interests and topics he works on. But what I noticed was he is a fellow "Awarder". I often find him giving his self-created Appreciation Medals to fellow editors. A look at his User Contributions shows an editor constantly reaching out to fellow contributors with words (and awards) of encouragement. This award finds him in the midst of doing some volunteer work "helping a group of university students learn how to use Wikipedia". Gog signed up in 2014 but really got busy in JAN of 2018. His amazing efforts are to long to mention: take a look at his lists of promoted articles and draft main page blurbs (and, especially, its archive}, and tell me you are not impressed. He contributes to WP:DYK and 2 projects:Featured article candidates and Military History and is a coordinator at both. He finished in second place in the 2020 Military Historian of the Year Award. Of his over 50,000 edits, 21,000 are in MainSpace. He has promoted 32 Featured Articles and 81 Good Articles. Editors have acknowledged being the grateful recipients of his tactful, honest and knowledgeable advice. On top of all that, Gog is a frequent participant in the WikiCup. Thank you Gog the Mild for all you do to make this workplace pleasurable. This award was seconded by Girth Summit and Kirbopher2004.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
The scale and quality of Gog's contributions in many topics and interests are impeccable. Plus, he appreciates fellow editors with words (and awards) of encouragement. His lists of promoted articles and draft main page blurbs (and, especially, its archive}, are impressive. He finished in second place in the 2020 Military Historian of the Year Award. 32 Featured Articles and 81 Good Articles. Known for his tactful, honest and knowledgeable advice.
congratulations! and thanks for all your great work!! we also appreciate the insights that you offer at WP:HIST!! --Sm8900 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the February 2021Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 47 points from 6 articles. Congratulations, Eddie891TalkWork 17:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Help?
I am slowly advancing through the Americas, but now I have arrived at the US and oh my. Our articles are terrifically conflated. I really, really did not want to have to rewrite existing articles, merely to add information to them, but I am bamfoozled on this one. Nationality is who belongs. Citizenship is what you get for belonging. But both the United States nationality law and Citizenship of the United States cover a whole lot of the same information because of an apparent misunderstanding of the terms. I don't want to rewrite two articles, so I want to know how to determine who are the most prolific contributors to the citizenship article. If I know that, perhaps I can get them to assist with that one so that the who and the what are clear to readers. Do you know how to do that? SusunW (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)SusunW, does this give you what you are looking for? It's the "page statistics" link, seen when viewing history; there's also a gadget that adds that link above every article. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi SusunW. Just caught up with this, apologies. I assume that Vanamonde's solution is what you needed. (I recommend going to Preferences, and under Gadgets ticking "XTools: dynamically show statistics about a page's history under the page heading".) 45.1% of the current content of Citizenship of the United States has been added by Tomwsulcer. 31% of the current United States nationality law has been contributed by an editor masquerading as "SusunW"; sounds suspicious to me.
Edit clash, and, as usual, I am behind the curve. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
LOL. I'm sure that the stats are correct, as I am adding my info to the nationality law article but need to cut out a bunch of stuff that is about citizenship, but not nationality. Clearly, I am not gonna finish this one today, but I am trying to clean it up as I add information. SusunW (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Ultimate saddo award
Woo hoo! My 50,000th edit. Proof positive of what a sad, sad person I am. I really need to get out more.
RE
Just archive it now so less time will be wasted waiting to renominate. isento (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Isento, I will, obviously, archive this if you wish. But the same issues will come up in any future nomination. It may be easier to deal with them now, when you have everything else lined up. Your call, could you confirm which way you want to go? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Will they? Is that reviewer going to be there again? isento (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Glob forbid I dare "badger" them again... isento (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Some of those sources are pretty crucial. And they didn't elaborate on why they questioned their quality. What exactly am I supposed to do with that? isento (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I could of course replace some of the references to AllMusic, even though one reviewer demonstrated at the review how it actually is a good source. But I doubt that would be enough to dispel the air of concern the original source reviewer cast on the nom a long time ago. isento (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The onus is on the nominator to demonstrate that every source they use meets both WP:RSand the "high-quality" FAC criterion. A reviewer need do no more than than ask a nominator to justify them. The coordinators are perfectly capable of forming their own judgement as to whether your responses are convincing against these two. If you think that you have fully justified why each source that has been queried is both reliable and high quality, say so and I will reread. But there is no point in asking the reviewer for details of why they are querying any source, that's not how it works. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I believe I have justified the questioned sources' reliability and quality. At the original reviewer's section, the next source reviewer's section, with another reviewer echoing one particular source's reliability. Yes, please reread. Thank you. And if the nominator need not do more than they have done, they should not say they will. And for the record, that is not my experience with source reviewers. Others have offered more detail and thought in their responses. isento (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I will reread, give me some time. Yes, many source reviewers will indicate what specific issues they have with a particular source, but there is no requirement for them to do so. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi isento. I can see why you feel frustrated, but to my eye the nomination has received a very reasonable source review from an editor who has carried out over 2,000 of them. You also seem to have been treated with some restraint by an editor voluntarily giving up their free time to help improve the article, in spite of what could readily be perceived as a lack of WP:AGF on your part. I have been a little blunt here and on the FAC page as it seems easier all round to tell it how I see it, rather than have you believe that the issue is the attitude of a single reviewer. It is not. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
If you say so isento (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
You and Ealdgyth should revisit my other FA nominations that cite from AllMusic. A few of them happen to be upcoming on the main page. Don't know what that says about this project if that is allowed. isento (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Isento: Well, it says a couple of things to me. One is that Wikipedia is a volunteer project to which people contribute as a hobby, like bird-spotting or stamp-collecting. So it has uneven quality control: this is not a surprise; the surprise is that it has reasonable quality control at all. Another is that just because something in obvious breach of the MoS or an assessment criterion has not been picked up before, possibly several times, does not prove that it will never be picked up. And a third is that myself and Ealdgyth have put many hours of unpaid work into this FAC, not because we are evil people and would rather spite its nominator than get on with our lives, but because we really want it to get to a standard where it can be promoted. The appreciation we get for this reinforces what we have long felt about human nature.
As always on Wikipedia, other opinions are available. Feel free to select one which is closest to your preconceived opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
For all your many hours, and all this time spent rationalizing your refusal to tackle the actual source, either of you could've just explained your concern about the quality of the source. How long would that have taken? isento (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't have a preconceived opinion. I researched the source after it had been doubted. What did either of you do to assess it other than some superficial reference to WP:RSP? Can I select someone else to review the next nomination? lol. isento (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Nothing at this recent thread on AllMusic's reliability suggests those were an "obvious breach" of an assessment criterion either. That, along with this recent accusation of quid pro quo supports at my nomination (which no one answered for either), stunts my appreciation for the work you guys do. In my experience with human nature, people generally don't like owning up to their shortcomings. Guess I just had nothing better to do today... isento (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This really shouldn't have been promoted... there were still unaddressed sourcing concerns, including a major one with the frequent use of a self-published book. What's the point of source reviews if they're ignored when the find unresolved issues? Aza24 (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
If it's any clarification, I always put notice that my source reviews have passed in three different ways (see here for an example)... "–Pass" in the header; "Pass for source review" in the text; and "Source review pass" in the edit summary with the intent of making sure this doesn't happen... I've added "Pending" to one at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Union of Bulgaria and Romania/archive1; maybe this will help in the future. Aza24 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Aza24, you are quite right. My apologies. I didn't read your comments in enough detail and mistakenly thought that your concerns had been addressed. I much appreciate your habit of being clear when you are content with a review. Other source reviewers are not so helpful and for some reason it didn't go "click" that this one was by the "helpful" type of reviewer. Even rereading your review I didn't at first see what your outstanding concerns were. My bad in two respects: not realising that the reviewer was you and that you would make it clear when you were satisfied; and not reading your comments in sufficient detail. I shall endeavour not to make either of these again. How can we remedy the situation? I am happy to let the nominator know of my error, if you are them willing to carry on working with them on the outstanding issues. Or any other approach you suggest. Again, apologies. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Gog, I am reluctant to bring this up now considering you are already dealing with the (fill in the adjective) posts a few sections above this one about source reviews, and I don't want to add to that unnecessary burden. But because those posts and this issue relate to what I have been trying to further (more help on source reviews along with a more active peer review), I am confused and dejected more so than concerned. I feel like I no longer understand what FAC is. Here's where recent FAC decisions confuse me:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 Tour de France/archive1. As Aza24 mentions, the source review had outstanding issues. Yet less than 24 hours after TRM struck his oppose, the article was promoted on the bare minimum of three supports, with none of those supports coming from particularly grilling reviewers. Why an experienced reviewer would strike an oppose with outstanding source reviews is a mystery, as is why others would support in the absence of cleared sources. But what really confuses me is why this article wasn't given more time, while you are asking for more time for better prepared FACs that had grilling and thorough reviewers.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1987 FA Cup Final/archive1. Similar to above. Less than 24 hours after receiving a bare minimum third support, this article is promoted in spite of unaddressed concerns raised by SarahSV after she appeared to give up. How many times can we ignore Sarah's reviews and not expect that ... we will lose quality reviewers if their concerns are repeatedly ignored? She struck not because the issue was resolved, but because she didn't have time to deal with it. And yet this article was quickly promoted as soon as it got its third support, while not having an abundance of independent review. These are two examples that could have used more time for more independent review. Meanwhile ... in the next example ...
SarahSV is an excellent reviewer, and I always give their opinions considerable weight. I would not ignore any of their concerns. On checking I can see no outstanding concerns. If I am being dense - entirely possible - please flag up via a diff or a quote what I am missing.
The nomination was open for nine weeks, which seems sufficient to me for anyone interested to comment. The community has repeatedly expressed concern at nominations staying open for what it considers too long, so IMO it was time for a judgement call as to whether to archive or promote. IMO there was a consensus to promote and no outstanding concerns, so I promoted. I would have no problem in principle in such cases remaining open longer - for one thing it would make the coordinators less open to this sort of criticism - but that would, again IMO, be going against the clear consensus of the community.
Gog, I have this handy new gadget from the developers that allows me to easily click on a previous reply, and threads responses correctly ... but your re-threading and missing sigs defeats it and makes editing harder for me :) Re-threading ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
As you probably know, we are in violent agreement on the need to move nominations more quickly. What I am trying to point out is there seems to be a logical difference between giving Thomas a few more days just in case, while closing the other two as soon as they got minimal support. I am confused about what seem to be competing aims (and I suspect many of us are, and understand that the Coords have to balance these competing issues). Re SarahSV, her final comment before striking and exiting was "It might not matter if it were just a few sentences, but it's eight paragraphs and 52 citations." That seems to be an outstanding concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
To which the nominator responded and to which SarahSV in turn responded "... I don't have time to follow up. Good luck with the nomination.". There was no unaddressed actionable comment for a coordinator to take note of. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
It looks like we now have a default in favor of lengthy FACs, even when they did all the hard work off-FAC, and appear at FAC prepared. At the same time that other nominators are seeing their articles promoted as soon as they have the bare minimum of support, even with outstanding issues on the page. This is confusing and discouraging, at least to me, as I am working as hard as I can (three weeks off notwithstanding per computer repair) to promote a more active Peer review and to encourage source reviewers. It seems that with these examples we are not only going sideways on the very things I am working to improve, but also seeing a default that favors lengthy FACs even when they prepared off-FAC. Can you see why I am confused, and discouraged, by this? I know you to be conscientious and diligent in all of your work, and very much appreciate that, so I hope you can give me some feedback such that I won't feel my peer review and source review work has been futile. Why is Heart of Thomas stalled, when the other two went through as soon as they had the bare minimum, even with outstanding concerns? Am I working in the wrong directions? Are our views about how FAC should function so different that I should think about working elsewhere ? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, we do not have a default in favour of lengthy FACs. We have a default in favour of leaving FACs open for long enough for any interested reviewers to contribute. As I believe I indicated, I am happy with how H of T has progressed; it seems to have been well prepared and to be receiving a positive response. Clearly a lot of work has gone in since its previous nomination. But, I want to make sure that it is not promoted before everyone interested has had a chance to comment. Some reviewers like to wait out an early rush of comments so they are commenting on a more stable version. You are doing sterling work in preparing articles for FAc, to the extent that I cannot off-hand even thing of any suggestions for improvements.
Back to H of T, at the moment it seems likely that it will be promoted in less than three weeks after nomination. I don't consider this an inordinate delay to me. Obviously I am open to guidance or correction from the community on this, as with everything. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, I agree with that (early rush of comments), but I see two problems. The logic seemed to be different on the other two, which were promoted as soon as they hit three. And if we now have an entrenched expectation that FACs will run for a month, we risk closing even those like Thomas before reviewers have had a chance to weigh in. I see now a fairly entrenched and entitled expectation that FACs will run as long as needed; that is my concern. If lengthy FACs are to be the norm, I am unsure what my efforts are accomplishing. (And I am relieved that the nominator took the delay so well after jumping through the PR hoops :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Sandy, I don't understand what you mean by "And if we now have an entrenched expectation that FACs will run for a month, we risk closing even those like Thomas before reviewers have had a chance to weigh in." Any chance you could rephrase or unpack it a bit?
"I see now a fairly entrenched and entitled expectation that FACs will run as long as needed". From my view I don't at all. Have a read through looking at how many messages I have left stating that a nomination was liable to be archived if it did not attract further reviews, frequently with a very clear timescale. Or have a skim through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2021. Only yesterday I archived a nomination which had been open more than ten weeks because I considered it to have timed out. Well, yes, the kick back probably does support your "entitled" comment; but it happened and will continue to happen. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the sig; I got to use my new gadget! Trying to unpack what I mean and what has me confused. If reviewers hold off on commenting as they don't want to be part of the initial rush, as you say, but then have the expectation that they have quite a long time to comment (that is, around a month these days), we have two different problems that are self-defeating. 1) Even on a well-prepared FAC like Thomas, keeping it open a few more days may not generate those last-minute reviewer comments if they now have the expectation that they have a full month to respond.
Well that is just tough on them, if the article is up for 3 weeks and stable for the last of these then they need to get in there. If this doesn't match their expectations, then they need to adjust these. (Or start a conversation on the FAC talk page to change a long-standing coordinator procedure.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
While on the other hand, 2) in cases like the other two FACs I pointed out, by closing them within 24 hours of the final (perceived) minimum support, we still miss those who may have been holding off.
Again, if someone has been holding off for over 2 months my sympathies are limited. JFDI. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
That is, these expectations may be causing us to lose reviewers in either case.
An argument can be made for any set up that it loses reviewers; barring several alternate universes in which to carry out experiments, we shall never know. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll have you know, I had to look up JFDI :) Ok, I think we have beaten this topic to death. I still have EIGHT more (holy cow) pre-FAC peer reviews to get through before I can be caught up at PR, so I can then get caught up at URFA/2020, so I can then start helping at FAC. Three weeks without my computer was a killer. Thanks for listening, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The alternative is a FAC model where reviewers know to jump on new nominations right away, as the expectation is that they will be closed more-or-less within a few weeks, except in extreme cases. This is a fundamental difference dividing reviewers re how FAC optimally functions. How can we get more reviewers engaging early on, and avoid stagnant FACs? There seems to be fundamental disagreement over that basic issue. Which is not intended as criticism of you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
There does indeed. I'll implement any policy for which there is a clear consensus among the community and which is reasonably workable (or stand down if I really object). I have a view on this, but as a coordinator it is my role to work to a brief - hopefully with some flexibility. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
At any rate, Gog, I have heard you and don't want to belabor this issue; I think/hope that I understand well the difficulties of the job you do. I would like to keep trying to do what I am trying to do for a while longer, but just don't think I can bring forward my sourcing review proposal until we all have a more clear understanding of what seem to be differences about the fundamentals of how FAC optimally works, and just wanted to make you aware of my concerns. I realize it has to come across as criticism, which is not intended, as I do value your effort and intent. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, no worries. Constructive criticism is OK, especially from someone putting as much work into the process as you. If you have concerns, please feel entirely free to air them. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Replying here to both threads, because I'd rather not continue two at once. If it's any clarification Sandy, I took note of Sarah's concerns on the Youtube refs (see my notes in "Reliability" of the source review) and concluded that their use was appropriate. On Thomas, I also err on the side of confusion. I would guess that the accidental promotion of Tour de France was in part wanting to move the process along, and I would then think Thomas be promoted by now for the same reason. On the Tour de France, I don't really know what to do... it was clear the nominator was frustrated by the situation, which is why I hoped Nikkimaria might be able to help find a solution, but neither of us were successful. However, again we face situations where not every FAC is about the Tudors or World War II, and hence not every topic is going to have high quality sources available for some information. In this respect, it seems appropriate to allow use of the source in question at the Tour de France, as well as the AllMusic ref a few threads above, yet this would still directly contradict with the FAC criteria. Aza24 (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Aza24, re “On the Tour de France, I don’t really know what to do”, I am not sure if you are seeking advice, but in case you are ... no content review process is perfect, no FA is perfect, stuff happens, and sometimes it’s best to just learn what one can from the situation and then let ‘em go. I have some promotions that make me cringe; I try not to think about them ;). Under the new proposal, the Coords would come to a point where they would have to judge whether to go ahead and pass the nomination to the second phase, while if they do, highlighting there was disagreement about X source, and asking that reviewers supporting or opposing the nomination comment specifically on the sourcing dilemma, so that the consensus rests with reviewers rather than having Coords be so put on the spot as we see in these examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
French reviewer for spot checks
Hi Gog, I have a feeling that the spot check on the Tibesti Mountains FAC might be a little intimidating given that about a quarter of the sources are in French. I've heard that requesting reviews is frowned upon, and so I was wondering whether you think it would be appropriate to ping a French-language reviewer, such as Nikkimaria, to ask whether they might have time to squeeze in a spot check. I wouldn't expect to get a support out of a spot check, so perhaps a request of this sort would be more ethical. Thanks for all your work at FAC. Brycehughes (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Brycehughes, there is no problem with requesting a review, so long as it is neutrally phrased. So "I need one more support to get this promoted, could you chip in?" would be frowned upon. But eg see this on my talk page. So by all means ping Nikkimaria. I have no idea how they do it all, but they are often willing to add a clear, polite request to their workload. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, how are you? I saw your comments in the Blond Ambition Tour FA nomination page; I agree it's not ready; I wish to withdraw the nomination, can you tell me how? Thank you!! --Christian (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Gog the Mild. You have new messages at Talk:Huaynaputina. Message added 15:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Crap. I didn’t mean it. That’s why I reverted it. Ceoil was being awesome and helping me out. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The Ultimate Boss, reverted. Which may or may not get me into trouble. Don't be so hasty next time. My coordinator comment still stands: you have 25 hours to turn round the oppose and show that the nomination is garnering some support. Or at least make significant movement in that direction. That said, working with Ceoil off-FAC may be a sensible way forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I just signed my name in blood on the nom page that will work with Ultimate Boss before the next, hopefully successful nom. I am optimistic, there is easily enough rel source material for a FA, and my long promised ce is in process. I may cut back on some of the stats, esp in the lead, but this is doable. Boss...lets keep in contact before any more promotions, pls....and sorry for being silent these last few months, I can imagine that was frustrating. Ceoil (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
...and trying my hardest to write in British English. It's a nightmare. Just saying, when the foremost expert on British Nationality writes the "Naturalization Act" allowed persons to "naturalise" how the heck am I, a mere Southernese-English speaker supposed to know how the heck to translate stuff from normal English to British English? I have decided just to write them the best I can and leave it to someone else to figure it out and pretty up. o.O 24 done and only like 170 to go ... progress of a sort. Hope all is well with you. SusunW (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
SusunW, just write it any old how, ping me, and tell what var you want it translating into. No worries. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Battle of Rethymno, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
A rare accomplishment? Have you seen his bling page?
Ahem - congratulations. I've just scribbled something, which I am considering nominating for a much more lowly honour; I'd be grateful of any comments or suggestions, if you have the time. :) GirthSummit (blether) 11:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Just passing by and noticed this blurb Girth Summit. Made me laugh, bling page indeed. Hope all is well with you. SusunW (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
SusunW, have you seen it? I'm afraid to go there in case I am cut to ribbons by all those gold stars - they look pointy! I'm well thanks, or as well as one can reasonably expect to be in the current situation - it's currently the Easter holidays, schools are out, and I am getting chance to do a bit of writing, which I'm enjoying. I'd also be happy to help with any Britishising that needs doing to those articles by the way - although there is the risk that I might make a slip and Scottishise them (do any of them offer the opportunity to use the excellent and entirely respectable word 'outwith', which the English eschew for some reason? Hope you are also well. GirthSummit (blether) 09:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I have, it is blinding all the glitter. Us mere mortals must be content just to write content and enjoy Gog's mentorship. I shall never have the energy to shepherd that many articles to greatness. I make due with just doing the best that I can and having him pass his magic wand over some of them. ;) Thanks for the offer, Girth Summit, I may well take you up on it. There are a lot of these nationality laws to do, but the more I work with them, the easier it gets and the more angry I get that inequalities were ingrained for so long. I guess that's a good thing, because it propels me forward in the task. Now that the weather is back in the 30s, all here has returned to fabulousness. I am happy. Life is good. Methinks outwith is a lovely word! I shall add it to my vocabulary. SusunW (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
possible new role
Hi. I have noted your recent terrific work and efforts in editing. would you be interested in serving in the role of "coordinator" at WP:HIST? please let me know. Please ping me when you reply. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk)
Sorry Sm8900, but I am struggling to meet the commitments I already have on Wikipedia and simply don't have the spare time to take on more. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
ok, I understand. in that case, I would like to create a new position for you, to reflect your existing efforts in topics related to history. I may provide your name as "key editor on numerous history topics." Perhaps that's okay? thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Sm8900, sure, that would be fine. And happy as always to respond to queries etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
that's terrific. thanks! my idea for this role was basically to fit into your existing efforts anyway, without adding any new roles for you at all. it will be great to have you listed there. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
On the main page today: an article about music significant in my life, Bach's motet Jesu, mein Freude, one of the strangest histories from the start in 2006 to the Main page today! Perhaps it will make it to FA some day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you today for Battle of the Saw, introduced with thanks: "Ancient Carthaginians again. Hannibal's father making his name during a nasty episode in a nasty war."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: OK, so I totally missed this until just now. You didn't make it big enough. Thank you, I am impressed. Now I need to work out how to get it out of my monitor so that I can eat it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Sieges some more
Gog, on this one I slipped while trying to type edit summary "don't make the lead about the term". On this one of yours, are you now OK going back to lowercase siege? Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: I have responded to the Calais case query on the article's talk page. Re Berwick, I am actively working on it and tend to throw words at the page and then grandfather's axe them. Especially with leads, something of a personal weak area. Your edit came in 25 minutes after I had written the lead and before I had gotten round to reviewing what tosh I had written and kicking it into shape. I like your change, but it is not impossible that it may get tweaked as I continue to work on the article. So you may want to watchlist it. Either way, feel free to work through the rest of the article making sense of my stumbling prose. Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Question about sources
Hi there, sorry to bother you. Just a quick question about the sources you use. Do you borrow them from a library, buy them for a specific article, or already have them in your possession? I'd like to know so that I can decide what's best when expanding articles using book sources in the future. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Willbb234, not a problem. Let me partially recycle an earlier reply to a similar question. I never do serious work on an article unless I own a hardback RS which covers it. Often several. This or these frequently serve as the "spine" of the article. After that Google Scholar is helpful, as is Academia. Google Books can be very helpful - sometimes - if you know how to use it, but time consuming. Sometimes books oft cited on Wikipedia or in other books or articles can be useful. Unfortunately the chaff to wheat ratio is high, one reason I like to write several articles from a similar period - to maximise the output to input. And the more articles I write on a period, the more works on it I stumble across and a virtuous cycle emerges. I have quite a large virtual library now, of links to books and articles in the topic areas where I have previously worked.
The Wikipedia apparently supplies access to numerous goodies, but outside of JSTOR I have rarely been able to get it to work for me. Buidhe may be able to help you - or both of us - there.
What sort of topic or area are you thinking of working in? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
A lot of scholarly sources, including books, are on De Gruyter which you can get through TWL but have to apply for. I've found that quite helpful recently. Most Oxford University Press materials can be had either through TWL or at WP:RX. TWL doesn't cover JSTOR books but most of those can be got through WP:RX as well. Many older books can be loaned from Internet Archive. Personally I don't get hardcopy of anything or spend money on it, but I also have institutional access to a lot of stuff (which I'm willing to share with anyone who asks for it.) (t · c) buidhe 21:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
So from what I gather, it's a lot more accessible than I first thought. I had seen other editors, particularly MILHIST, and I thought they had several books to expand an article from, but it turns out there's plenty of online scans. I was writing about Federico Bahamontes from a book I got from the library and at some point I would like to continue writing on other historical figures or events. I thought this would be impossible for me as it would involve spending money on online subscriptions and books.
Regarding Google Books, I've occasionally used it but have always been stuck by the small previews. Do you pay to get round this? Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Willbb234, There are some tricks to google books. For example, if it's a snippet view you can often move the window along by searching 4-5 words at the end of it. I have been able to get entire chapters of some books from google books preview but it can be a mixed bag. (If you do access a page, make sure to screenshot it as it can always disappear later). The topics I write about tend to be covered in scholarly sources, which are better represented in TWL and institutional access, but for sports you might need to use the library more or buy books. (t · c) buidhe 22:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Adding to the above, I've found Project MUSE (apply on TWL) has a pretty good collection of books mainly American University Presses, EBSCOhost (available on TWL) has a pretty random but good collection. And I'm always blown away at how many books are borrowable on archive.org Eddie891TalkWork 22:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Buidhe's analysis is pretty on point, but I think De Gruyter is no longer apply-only-- I have access thru the general bundle Eddie891TalkWork 22:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much - now having a look. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Clarify needed
In Battle of Rethymno , "The German 2/I Battalion dug in on the hilltop having suffered 400 dead or wounded."
Are those casualties cause from attacking "Hill A" or Defending "Hill A" From Australian counter-attack ?
A-Class for subjects with very large numbers of potential sources
As you might have noticed, most of my battle-related content work is for article subjects with not a whole lot that has been written about them, but I've finally been working on one this year that actually has quite a bit of coverage - the Battle of Raymond. It's part of the Vicksburg campaign, which is one of the most-written events in the whole ACW. While there aren't any stand-alone scholarly works about Raymond (there's a self-published book by a guy with no real credentials and a short one by a hyperlocal battlefield friends group that this basically self-published), just about any book about the Vicksburg campaign will have at least several pages about Raymond. And there's just no real way to be able to access every single work about Vicksburg. I've gotten a pretty good span of the literature through stuff I have, books I borrowed from family members, university libraries, Google books, Wikipedia Library, etc. But I'm not sure where the line of "I can't corporate everything, but I've incorporated enough" is. What's your general advice on how to tell what extent of a vast literature is enough for A-Class? Hog FarmTalk 04:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
An interesting one. And common. For example the Battle of Crecy which I nominated for FA probably has as many book length treatments as Battle of Raymond has mentions in the literature. And a boggling number of RS mentions. The Warsaw University of Technology has even published a detailed computer analysis specific to Crecy calculating at what ranges English longbows could have been expected to have penetrated French armour and to what depth! The trick of course is to ignore most of it.
Of the RSs which are reasonably recent, pick the most thorough/detailed and use this to write as the "spine" of the article. Then start going through a sample of other RSs, ideally starting with the most recent and working backwards. They are likely to be saying much the same things, as they will all be referring to the same primary sources and/or earlier definitive study. Note what they do use as their sources. Note if they mention any other author as having a contrary opinion or being one whom they wish to rebut - in the latter case you may wish to read them. Add anything new or different in these sources to the "spine" version. Work in as many different sources as you can, replacing most of those from the "spine" work, in order to demonstrate the FAC virtue of "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"; note that this does not require you to look at all, or even most, of the sources. And done. Simples!
Yeah, that helps. Ballard and Smith are two of the most thorough in that case, so they can serve as the spine. This one was a little tricky to write, as the chronology is a little confused, since both commanders had little idea of what was going on, but I think that this is something I can probably get to A-Class. There's one more book that I think I can access through interlibrary loan I'd like to add before an ACR though. Hog FarmTalk 19:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
If you can get an article to A class and the sourcing is sound, you can get it to FA. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
If FACs need an extra review that's not coming ...
I'm willing to chip in a couple a week. My internet has been running very poorly lately, so I haven't been able to monitor the FAC page much, but I'd like to still keep reviewing FACs regularly. If as coord, you see a FAC that needs some reviews, ping me over there and I'll try to get a review in. I can generally probably do a couple a week, although pop culture stuff is not an area I prefer to review in. Hog FarmTalk 21:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
That's very good of you Hog Farm. Urgents is a good guide to FACs in need of one more review. Johnny Owen (boxer) could use a further general review. You did an image review for it more than two months ago. As I find others, would you like me to post them on the FAC talk page? (Which may encourager l'autres.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll give Johnny Owen a look within the next day or two. Hog FarmTalk 22:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
R. A. B. Mynors
Hi Gog the Mild, thank you for your encouraging closing comments on the Mynors FAC. Since the nomination's closure, I've worked successfully with the reviewers at PR to address the issues they raised. I'd like to take up your offer of a new FAC for the article without the two-week hiatus. Of course, I will not go ahead with a new nomination without your approval. On the topic of additional reviewers: in addition to those who reviewed last time around, I've been assured by Ergo Sum that they will chip in. I'm also expecting a review from SandyGeorgia who didn't want to comment until after a subject specialist had had a look - this has now been done by Llywrch. My FAC mentor Gerda suggested that Eddie891 would be a good reviwer (I would contact them once the FAC has been filed). Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Modussiccandi, yes, if you believe it is now FAC ready, feel free to nominate it. As I said when closing the previous nomination, the usual two week wait is waived in this case. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
May TFA
GtM, I see you are scheduling May. It looks like the Menstrual cycle FAR is wrapping up (it was delayed by some sock activity). I am still hoping that dementia with Lewy bodies will run on July 21, so with the goal to spread out our limited medical content (every two months), it would be good to either get Menstrual cycle in May, or delay it til September. Might you leave an open May slot just in case it gets through FAR soon? Otherwise, we'll go for September. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia, it is now scheduled. 28th. Are you going to write the blurb?
The draft schedule is here. You will note FACs from 2007(x2) and 2008 (x2). Would it be possible for FAR to give them a quick once over? This is optional, as barring something horrible being uncovered I intend to run them anyway, but it would be reassuring to know that any bloopers had been picked up.
Once I get a bit more caught up here, I will list old and older FAs at URFA and folks there will run through them. I can get Colin and Graham Beards to help with the blurb ... will start on that first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gog, I see that my FA International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide is on the list. I was hoping to get it to TFA on its 40th anniversary in June 2022, so do you think there's another FA that could run in its place? Thanks in advance, (t · c) buidhe 17:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
From a guy in a suburb in Buffalo, New York and a wing fanatic, here's some wings for ya for the FA review award. Analyzing other people's work really gives you an idea of what is wrong or to watch out for when you write your own article. It's such a valuable experience! 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks HA, I shall enjoy. I agree, I wish that all wannabe FAC nominators would do half a dozen FAC reviews, 3 or 4 PRs and a couple of ACRs before their first nomination. It would probably make for a much less bruising experience. But c'est la vie. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I think some FA reviewers could also write FA themselves. There are many amazing reviewers, but I also feel they make mistakes sometimes, such as asking for details about a topic that isn't in reliable sources. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
HumanxAnthro, usually reviewing is done more casually than writing a wannabe FA, so there will be more "errors". Which is why nominators need to be firm, and reviewers need to accept this. Well, one can wish. Most - not all, but most - of the prolific reviewers have plenty of FAs behind them - Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm one of them that hasn't nominated an article for FA, but has written a lot of articles. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello. The article 2020–21 SC East Bengal season was recently promoted to FA. Now, I want to go for FA. Will you be my mentor? Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 15:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi ArnabSaha and apologies for not getting back earlier. I think that I would make a poor mentor as I have never even taken a sports article to GAN, never mind FAC. Can I suggest contacting one of the editors who regularly submit sports articles at FAC? Eg The Rambling Man, Lee Vilenski, WA8MTWAYC or Zwerg Nase among others. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356 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 Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
WikiCup 2021 May newsletter
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in Round 2 were:
The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.
Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and CwmhiraethMediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
The article Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356 for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
Thanks so much for your comments on the FAC for Armenian Genocide denial. You really pushed me to improve the article! (t · c) buidhe 21:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi buidhe and thank you. Especially for the reassurance. I was a little twitchy that I was just being nit picky a couple of times. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Battle of Heraklion, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know I've tweaked one sentence in the blurb which didn't imo make sense. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Fine, but that takes it over the hard limit of 1,025 characters. I have trimmed it back, hopefully without losing the sense. Feel free to reinstate, but you will need to lose the characters elsewhere. Thanks for the notification. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Ta. No, it just means that I can't cut and paste. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Question
Hi, I'm thinking of put the work into helping keep History of timekeeping devices as a FA, as it's a really interesting article imo. Question—when references have both ISBN and OCLC numbers, are both supposed to be there with FA s? (e.g. ISBN 0-7432-1676-8. OCLC 53324804) Amitchell125 (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Amitchell125: - Well, Gog probably knows better than me about this, since he's one of the leaders of the FA process, but I've always just used the ISBN when possible and only broke out the OCLC when there's no ISBN. Hog FarmTalk 15:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Hog Farm:, I've done the same as you, but I wasn't sure it was the done thing. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
HF is, as usual, correct. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Source reviews
It looks like the nominations listed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests that need source checks is a place that needs helping out. Are my source reviews of high-enough quality from what you've seen to be useable? Sourcing is the backbone of FA quality, and I'm nervous I'll be the one to break the entire FAC process by performing source reviews that don't cut it. Hog FarmTalk 17:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hog FarmMy experience of your source reviews is that they are more than adequate.(Re-reading, can I stress that I mean that literally: I have not seen one which I would not consider well over what I would consider acceptable.) No one expects perfection from source reviewers, nor a 100% check of everything. Bear in mind that a source review does not require any spot checks - although I routinely do 3 or 4. So I would suggest that your nervousness is misplaced and would be most pleased if you were to help reduce the source review backlist. (FAC is pretty robust. Even if you did, improbably, turn in a substandard review it would probably survive.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Heartfox, here is fine, and thank you. You are quite right, and I had missed it. I wish that reviewers would follow the instructions - but that's talking to the wind (for want of a pithier idiom). I am grateful that they review at all. Reviews needed page amended accordingly. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Beaver FA
Hello. Can we find a way for beaver to be off limits for April 7, 2022. I don't want people to keep nominating it and having to inform them that I already requested a certain day. LittleJerry (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
LittleJerry, I have emailed the TFA schedulers and it will be withdrawn and reserved for your preferred date. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Treaty of Guînes 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 Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Advice please!
Hi Gog, an editor seems to be hacking around with the lead section of Thomas Erpingham, which happens to be on the main page today. The editor has made 20 edits made in 3 hours, all minor, and has not discussed anything yet on the article's talk page—and I'm not convinced of the quality of the changes that have been made. This person seems to have begun contributing in January 2021, so lacks experience. Do know how I should best approach putting the lead back to how it was without getting into a war? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Amitchell125, this sort of thing is common with TFAs. What I do is ignore all changes until 4 or 5 days after TFA day. I then get all of the changes up on one big diff and reverse all of those I don't like. This is so SOP that I even have a boilerplate edit summary in a sandbox:
Tidy up, changes and reverts to good faith edits around the recent TFA appearance per [[WP:FAOWN]]. If you think that an improvement to the article has been reverted, feel free to discuss it on the talk page.
Editors of TFAs almost never watchlist the article and after 18 TFAs I have rarely had anyone come back to me on this, and then very politely. Also, I rarely read edits to "my" TFAs while they are on the main page, it is bad for my blood pressure. Does this help? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
PS My turn in the barrel is on the 20th. And again on the 1st. Glutton for punishment. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, Gog. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you today for Battle of Rethymno, about a "very hard fought World War II battle which was part of the 1941 Battle of Crete. So hard fought that both sides lost."! - Perhaps you can help with a translation related to the conditions for peace coming growing whatever - on my talk, look for Wenn Menschen sich vergessen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
See my talk today, - it's rare that a person is pictured when a dream comes true, and that the picture is shown on the Main page on a meaningful day. - Shoot for the stars in the same set, - a good match. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey Gog, will most likely finish up the source review on my FAC later today. Would you still like a couple more reviews in the meantime? I have an open opportunity for advertising at WT:VG, but I don't want to get people to waste time and energy if it's unecessary. Panini!🥪 15:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Panini!, I would need to go through the article and reviewer comments in some detail to give a final response, but on what I have picked up from following the review to date and from a quick skim just now it is likely that a source review pass will wrap this up. Not definite, but likely enough that I would suggest your not advertising at VG right now. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, finished the source review, Hog Farm passed. Panini!🥪 02:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I've spent 1/2 an hour trying to figure out how to do that conversion thingy and just cannot wrap my head around it. 25,000,000 Spanish pesetas in 1899 is the equivalent of what US $ now. All these converters keep asking me Euros, which confuses me because Euros didn't exist in 1899, but pesetas quit existing in 2002. I'm probably making this way harder than it needs to be, but it is beyond me to comprehend. You can try to explain it to me, but it would be easier if you could just put it in here: "In 1899, Germany purchased the Carolines for 25 million Spanish pesetas, equivalent to $?". I appreciate you. If you are too busy, no worries. SusunW (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
SusunW, that was seriously tricky, and nearly caused my brain to melt. It is a bit clunky, but it should work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Gracias, señor. If it made your brain nearly melt, imagine what it did to mine. o.0 I keep thinking I'll figure these conversions out, but I can never seem to manage it. Truly appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The article Treaty of Guînes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Treaty of Guînes for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
What FACs "urgently require feedback"?
Just asking because my idea of this seems a bit different from yours. For example, the Santería article is well prepared but hasn't got much substantive feedback. If it doesn't attract such in the near future, it's likely to be archived. So it does urgently need feedback, doesn't it? The Jamiroquai article I only put on the list because it was previously archived for lack of comment, but seemed well-prepared also. (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Buidhe, the Urgents list attracts very few reviewers, so I try to limit it to nominations where a single additional review will make the difference between archiving and not.
Jamiroquai: I assume that someone, if only the nominator, feels that every nomination is well prepared, but putting every new FAC on the Urgents list as soon as it is posted seems to defeat the object of the list.
Santería: I do see your point here, but this needs three reviews to avoid archiving. The same three reviews spread among any of the four current noms on the list would save three of them from archiving. It is a harsh triage, but hopefully you see may rationale.
In brief, I think that we need to restrict Urgents to where a single review makes the difference, rather than list noms still needing two or three, no matter their preparedness, or the list would swell unreasonably. Obviously, if the list were to start attracting more attention I would be amenable to relaxing this. Pinging @FAC coordinators: for possible input. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Yep, the FAC urgents list is a bit like the image and source review requests list, traditionally populated by mature noms needing a bit more input to get consensus. Re. newer noms needing feedback, Gog has made a habit of nudging under-reviewed noms at the 2/3-week mark that they're in danger of archiving, and I think this has had a positive outcome in many cases. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, good to know. That makes sense. (t · c) buidhe 01:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Battle of Dupplin Moor, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Question about Battle of Rethymno
Hey mate, long time no see. I've recently edited the Battle of Rethymno one of those edits was a unit conversation and one of them was a rewrite of a unit that was fully written per MOS:UNITNAMES. What's wrong with those edits or was it one of your FA clean-ups again? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi CPA-5, good to hear from you again. Things OK with you? Yeah, that was the TFA on 20 May and attracted the usual amount of good faith chaff. It seems that I reverted your edits along with the rest. Yours are usually sound, so apologies. Possibly you could repeat them, and if I want to argue the toss I will discuss them with you before doing anything. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Pretty good at the moment. A little bit busy and have a stressful period because of the examens but overall pretty good. Here and there some depressing days but those are gone in no time. Well, I hope so at least. I'm trying to get a come back here. How are our mates in the brotherhood doing? :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
CPA-5, that is mostly good to hear. Things are ticking along here, but would be much improved by your getting more involved again. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Weardale campaign 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 Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
TFA in June
Thank you today for Treaty of Lutatius, introduced: Regular reviewers of my articles from the First Punic War may well be pleased to hear that we have finally reached the end of the war. This article covers the peace treaty that ended the 27-year-long conflict. - I am sooo pleased to see something on a treaty, instead of another battle. First June flower. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Shoot for the Stars, it has only been one week, so I am reluctant. If and when it were renominated, what reason do you have to suppose that it would attract any more interest than last time? Have you reviewers lined up who are willing to look at it? Especially with regard to sources and images. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Shoot for the Stars you have not, IMO, made a case that a renomination will attract any more attention than the article's first. I would be surprised if it did. However, as you first queried if the initial nomination should be withdrawn on the 21 May, you may renominate two weeks after that, which is tomorrow, 4 June. Mention that I have given this permission in your nomination statement, to prevent another coordinator promptly archiving it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The article Weardale campaign you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Weardale campaign for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 11 reviews between January and March 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Congratulations, you won the May edition of the MilHist Article writing contest!
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the May 2021Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 30 points from 4 articles. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Talk 03:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a quick look over the article and advising me of any major barriers/areas to work on before I nominate it? Edwin mentioned the reference organization in the GA review, and this is definitely something I want to improve on, so any advice in that area particularly would be great. Thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gog, just checking if you had any time to do this - if you don't, no problem at all, and I'll ask someone else to take a look. Appreciate your time. Ganesha811 (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
1951
Hello, Gog!
Thank you for archiving my misfiled FAC. Is someone else going to move it or should I renominate but in FLC?
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Peer review
What ho! If you have half an hour to spare perhaps you'd be kind enough to look in at the peer review for Arnold Bennett, which I'm considering taking to FAC if I return to that bandit country, now that, judging from my recent incursions, it is less bandit-infested than it was a little while ago. Tim riley talk 11:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
FAC nominations
Hi Gog! I hope you are well. I was a little sad to see the Davis article was archived, but I completely understand that there wasn't a consensus for promotion. I will work on the article and make sure it does on the next occasion, however. :) In the close, you mentioned that neither nominator would be able to nominate any articles for two weeks. I do understand that those are the rules, but my other FAC closed a minute earlier; so I'd like to request the possibility of opening a slot for a single nomination of an FAC (not the same article). I am happy to wait out the 2 weeks for this single nomination, if that's deemed to be beneficial to the project.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 14:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, our first newsletter of 2021, which is a brief update of Guild activities since December 2020. To unsubscribe, follow the link at the bottom of this box.
Current events
Election time: Voting in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 16 June and will conclude at the end of the month. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Have your say and show support here.
June Blitz: Our June copy-editing blitz is underway and will conclude on 26 June.
Drive and blitz reports
January Drive: 28 editors completed 324 copy edits totalling 714,902 words. At the end of the drive, the backlog had reached a record low of 52 articles. (full results)
Progress report: as of 26 June, GOCE participants had completed 343 Requests since 1 January. The backlog has fluctuated but remained in control, with a low of 52 tagged articles at the end of January and a high of 620 articles in mid-June.
If 't'were me I would chip away at it by claiming sub-topics. And I would be careful to only include "significant" battles in them. So you must be well on your way to a List of battles of Price's Raid topic? Once you have two or three of these, you have a precedent you can refer back to if/when someone gets sticky about the subjective threshold of a "battle". So I suggest avoid publicly scoping a final topic yet; instead create some facts on the ground, as it were. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
For Price's Raid, I've just got Battle of Westport and whatever the main topic is left. My main concern is that the list might get AFD'd and merged into the main campaign article, which is in rather poor shape. Most of Westport shouldn't be too hard, except for the unsourced memorials and preservation details that may be hard to find sources for. Hog FarmTalk 13:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Most battle articles don't have memorial and preservation details, or they are skimpy. If the sources aren't there, dinna worry. I stay well away from AFD, so don't have an opinion on that other than that it would seem to me odd if it were. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Second FAC
Hey there Gog. I'm currently co-nominator for the nomination of Martin Rundkvist. Knock on wood, it's going well—three supports, addressed comments from a recently added fourth review, and now just missing an image review. Would you mind if I got a head start on a second nomination? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Usernameunique, not a biggy, but usually these requests go on the review page. So other coordinators can pick it up if I am busy and so reviewers don't come back at you when you open a second nom and they can't see that you have been given permission.
As well as three general supports, a nomination also needs source and image review passes to allow a second nom. Edwininlondon seems to have the former well in hand, and I may be persuaded to allow a second nom without a formal image review pass, despite some obvious licencing issues. It has been on the talk page list for quite a while though, which makes me a little twitchy.
I assume that you are wanting to nominate another collaboration? Any editor is allowed both a sole nominator nom and a collaboration nom without special permission. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Gog. All good to know. I was actually intending on a sole nomination, but didn't realize that one could do both a sole nomination and a collaboration at the same time. By the way, what are the licensing issues with the photos? This isn't my forte, but I had actually thought the images were in pretty good shape. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you The Writer's Barnstar for taking second place in the June 2021 MILHIST writing contest, scoring 20 points from two articles. Zawed (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
WikiCup 2021 July newsletter
The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:
The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.
In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and CwmhiraethCwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 10 reviews between April and June 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Older A-Class and FA ancient topics article sourcing
War against Nabis was recently delisted at FAR for poor sourcing, but it is still rated A-Class for MILHIST. I'm considering taking this to ACR again for improvement or delisting, because it is heavily sourced to Livy and Smith's 1873 source that has not aged well, but thought it worthwhile to get a second opinion on this first.
Also, for the continuing URFA/2020 project (I'm afraid the delisting of many older FAs is gonna start irking people soon), Alcibiades is one of the oldest ones on the table, and was noticed for potentially needing FAR back in March due to heavy use of Smith 1873, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Plutarch in places. Due to caps on FAR nominations, I've only been able to make one FAR nomination over the last month, so I want to save mine for the most problematic ones. In your opinion, does the sourcing in Alcibiades warrant FAR? Hog FarmTalk 02:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Alcibiades certainly needs its sourcing looking at. On a skim it seems well written and passably NPOV. It could probably be salvaged by someone with access to decent modern sources. As it stands it needs a visit to FAR, IMO, but it is in a different league to War against Nabis and I wouldn't describe it as one of "the most problematic ones". Gog the Mild (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you today for First Punic War, introduced "As a finale to my series of articles on the First Punic War, I offer you the article on the War itself. 23 years of war boiled down to less than 6,000 words – so there is a discussion point right there."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the scheduling of August. I wonder why some bios have birth and death days and months that are not relevant to the specific day, but especially about 23 August, where it says 5 August. Could that one perhaps be moved? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gerda Arendt. I have never personally understood why editors are so keen to tie TFA appearances to the dates they were born or died. I mean, who cares? Non-bio TFAs frequently do not tie to a particular date, even when one could be envisaged. If a TFAR is for a particular date I will do my best to respect it, regardless of my opinion. With other potential TFAs I am much more concerned with getting a balance through the month. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I personally understand day of birth for living people, as a little birthday gift, but I also understand not being interested in that. I am almost never interested in day of death, the big exception being when the world celebrates a person's work all year because of some round anniversary of that day, as Reger in 2016, centenary of his death in May. We had his Requiem works for TFA on 16 July that year, centenary of the premiere of one of them, after his death. - However, my understanding is that for biographies' blurb, we only mention years unless the day is of significance. If that's true, the 23 Aug one should be trimmed of excess days and months, unless moved to 5 Aug. That's all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I was unaware of that understanding, which is a little alarming as I am the TFA blurb coordinator. Could you point me to the relevant policy or guideline? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, no, I'm just a copycat, - better ask Wehwalt and Jim, unless you just want to skim older TFAs. I never wrote a bio TFA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt I'm not a fan of date links except for bios and obvious one-off major events, but many editors like a date link, so I try to keep them onside. Having said that, I sometimes get a request to run, say a road FA on the anniversary of its opening, when I suspect even the the designer and the person who opened it have long forgotten the day. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Jim, but it's no answer to the very small and precise question: Do we just have only year of birth and death for a bio, unless the precise day is significant - which is what Ian's change seems to imply, and is what I somehow got looking at history. And, even more precisely: is there a guideline for it, or is it just as it developed to be normally done? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
First Punic War
Congratulations, Gog, on all the detailed work you have devoted to this article and to many of the related articles it links to. From time to time, the FA on the main page really attracts my attention, as this one did today. It's thanks to editors like you that Wikipedia is gaining increasing respect as a reliable and readable source of information. I look forward to further GAs and FAs in relation to ancient history. I'm afraid I can't offer much assistance but I enjoy reading up on these important events.--Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Wow, Ian, that means a lot to me. Thank you. FPW was something of a labour of love, and it is pleasing to hear that it was time well spent. I have taken both SPW and PWs to GA and hope to get them to FA one day. They are more or less "done" text wise, but I need to check the accuracy of every cite. The prospect of this tedious chore causes me to keep pushing them to the bottom of my "round to it" pile, but one day ... Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Treaty of Guînes, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Four Award
Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Treaty of Guînes. — Bilorv (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Because I know you are dying to know, I have done 85 of 195. Why does it feel as if I am not making progress? Still swimming in so much to do with very little light at the end of this tunnel. Mayhaps when I hit 1/2 it will feel different. That being said, I am certainly learning a lot. SusunW (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Get them all to GA and you will have the biggest Good Topic on Wikipedia! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
While I could probably nominate them all now, I don't have time to do one review, much less 195. This is just the legal part, and whenever I finish it, I will get to finally work on the activism part. That part I will nominate. Maybe in 2022... SusunW (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
LOL, probably more realistic ;) SusunW (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
It's a huge undertaking! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Cai Lun
Hey, there's only one thing pending with the source review, and I believe it's been addressed for sometime now. Sturm isn't being super commutative, and the SR seems to have greatly stalled the whole process. I'm wondering if perhaps promotion might be called for at this point...? Sorry if I come off as presumptuous. Aza24 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, seems to be resolved now... Aza24 (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey sorry to bother again, but all this edit seems to do is remove some links to pages, was that what was meant? Thought I'd check with you instead of reverting. Best - Aza24 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Yep. It is normal to only provide one link to a work and the page numbers, rather than a separate link to each page. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I don't really understand how that would help, but I'll take your word for it. Aza24 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, a few months ago, I began work on promoting my article SS Choctaw to FA. The project eventually stalled, as I have been quite busy in real life. I would like to work on it again, and was wondering if you would be willing to help me with it.
Hi GreatLakesShips. Things are busy with me too, but I will try to give it a look over. In terms of having a FAC mentor, articles on Great Lakes freighters are so far from anything that I have experience of that I would be very far from a good candidate. Have you put it up for peer review and/or GoCER? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Just so I understand the rules for the future: I am quite impressed with the article, and think it should become Featured once a question I had about the drawings was addressed. Is there anything I could/should have said to make you not close the nomination? —Kusma (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
As it had hit the three week mark it really needed a minimum of two reviews - general, source or image. Only one general review would have gained it a warning that if there was not more activity in the near future it would be archived. The depth and breadth of the reviews, whether they had been completed and how experienced the reviewer(s) is(were) - re the topic and re FAC reviewing - make this more of an art than a science. See this, this and this for examples from the last couple of weeks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, so the failure of this FAC isn't simply my fault for not saying "conditional support" early on and there isn't much I could have done except create some sockpuppets bring in other people? Good to know, and thank you for the examples. —Kusma (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Burnt Candlemas 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The article Burnt Candlemas you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Burnt Candlemas for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Weardale campaign, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The article Burnt Candlemas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Burnt Candlemas for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Genghis Khan Edition Conquest of the Wiki World Triple Crown
Congratulations to Gog the Mild, who is only the 10th editor in Wikipedia's history to achieve the Genghis Khan Edition Conquest of the Wiki World Triple Crown. The value of your ongoing and incredible contributions is immeasurable. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you today for Battle of Caen (1346), another "article on the Hundred Years' War. At least it is not about Gascony. This features the much-vaunted English army of Crécy a little earlier in the campaign. Completely out of control both before and after they stumble to victory in their assault on Caen. A stain on England's record which neither discomfited them nor persuaded the French to battle."! - some recent July images to thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Halidon Hill 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 Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The article Battle of Halidon Hill you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Halidon Hill for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Have nommed Cullen House at FAC, if you are stuck for something to review. Be gentle... GirthSummit (blether) 14:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Urgents question
Hi, Gog, I was collating last month's FAC data and noticed this comment of yours. I know the image/source review requests are reserved for FACs that are getting close to support, but I didn't think the urgents list had that restriction. I'm pretty sure that in the past it's been used for anything that needs more reviews and is starting to age. Has anything changed, or am I misremembering? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if you're misremembering Mike, I wasn't submitting FACs back then, but I doubt it. Things evolve, and that is not how Urgents is used now or, for the most part, has been for the past year or so that I have been paying attention to it. Possibly due to the very limited response that placing a nomination there provokes.
Note this brief discussion from May - User talk:Gog the Mild/Archive 6#What FACs "urgently require feedback"? - where Ian Rose's recollection could be seen as differing from yours, but - more importantly IMO - seems to align with current usage. (There was no behind the scenes consultation between me commenting and Ian doing so, I wasn't certain that he would agree with my understanding until he did.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, maybe I'm misremembering. I don't feel strongly about it, but I think it would be harmless to allow noms with few or no reviews on that list, personally -- I think it's worse to see a nomination fail with no input at all than with two supports; it's more discouraging for the nominator. Just my two cents. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hah! As a coordinator I am loath to archive a FAC which has two supports and find that these put me in a real dilemma, hence my liking for what I understand to be the current approach. If Urgents got more attention I may have a different attitude. The two I have just removed to empty the box took 10 and 11 days to be picked up for a third review which is typical. So, IMO, Urgents needs, currently, to be reserved for the most urgent of urgents, as it were. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
FAC
Hey there, Gog the Mild! I wanted to quickly thank you for all of your work coordinating the featured article candidates. Hope you enjoyed your vacation! KyleJoantalk 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you KyleJoan, that is very kind of you. It is always good to receive feedback, and it is always pleasant to receive positive feedback. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my recent RFA
I appreciate your support and trust in my recent run for admin. I've had an interesting first few weeks and am learning a lot by being able to better watch (through tools) what admins do. Please call on me if you see making an error, or if you just need help. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi ChrisTheDude, I'm afraid not. It needs to have a source review at least started, and ideally passed, before that would be considered. I flagged the need up Requests some time ago, but it has not yet attracted a taker. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks for letting me know. Edwininlondon did the source review the other day and raised a couple of points which I have responded to. Hopefully he will pass the source review shortly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the July 2021Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 55 points from 6 articles. Congratulations, Hog FarmTalk 18:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
On 10 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Burnt Candlemas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an English army devastated Lothian in Scotland so thoroughly in 1356 that the episode became known as Burnt Candlemas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Burnt Candlemas. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Burnt Candlemas), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
On 12 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Oroscopa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when surrounded at the Battle of Oroscopa Carthaginian troops killed their horses and burnt their wooden shields to cook them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Oroscopa. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Oroscopa), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Hello Gog the Mild, apologies for the random message. I just wanted to say thank you for promoting Lights Up to FA. This would be my very first FA, and I'm happy that this got promoted after one previously unsuccessful FAC. I hope you have a great day. --Viridian Bovary (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Clarification
He asked me directly, removing my earlier doubts re collaboration. He may be sorry that he did, I hope not. SusunW (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I thought your comments to the point, as they usually are. If taken on board they will improve the article. If not the nomination may have trouble with the coordinators. How goeth the project? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. As usual, I struggled with every critique (Am I too harsh? Is this something every editor should do or just something I require of myself? Am I sure?) Well, you know the drill, it is very, very difficult for me to review someone else's work. It took me all day, but I am finished. Djibouti done about to start Egypt. 40 or so more for Africa, then Europe, then Asia. Feels like I am running in place. And I have zero clue how to tweak my table, but if you know an expert or someone passing by here could help, that'd be awesome. The columns for dates are too big and the column for comments is too small. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and I didn't know how to put that I looked at every source that I could access, so I just wrote a "note to the coordinators". You'll fix it if it needs to be fixed, right? I'm out. Dinner has arrived. SusunW (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
If I disappear for a day or so, don't worry. Battening down the hatches. Right now the sky is such a lovely blue. Eye before the storm? SusunW (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
SusunW, when you are back, nudge me to have a chat about your masterpiece. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Do I have a masterpiece? I am clueless. I feel like Van Gogh painting haystacks--if you do it often enough you might get one right. ;) I am honestly hoping that the storm passes us by, but based on the torrential downpours from last year, who knows. My body can definitely feel the shifts in the barometric pressure. SusunW (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
A few drops of rain intermittently. It's overcast, but the clouds are still white. No real wind to speak of, though it is blowing. You can feel the shift in pressure, well I can anyway. We're good at this point. All 3 cats are sequestered against their will and with us in the house. Will advise if anything happens, but at this point nothing to report. SusunW (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Still nothing, but we just lost power, so only got what batteries give me. SusunW (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Sky is blue, nary a cloud in the sky. Hardly any rain to speak of. Lost 1 banana tree to the wind. But us and the cats are fine. Power just now came back 20+ hours later. Nudge. What did you want to discuss? SusunW (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Some advice on getting an article I'm working on to the quality that the topic demands
Hi! While I've lurked Wikipedia for years I've only been actively editing it for a few months. However, I've often seen your name pop up in contests, talk pages of articles I've read, or in WikiProject pages and thought you'd be a good person to come to for advice.
I'm currently working on improving the article on the First Carlist War to reach the quality it truly deserves as one of the most important conflicts in Spanish history. I'm going to be working on it for the next few weeks but I was wondering if you could give me some advice based on my work so far, which you can see in my sandbox and includes the Background and Basque Fueros sections. One particular concern I have is respecting the structure of the original article, which I disagree with (for example, I feel the division between north and south fronts rather than a chronological and more holistic view of the conflict's progress is bad as it makes them appear as two different theaters rather than different areas of operations). How should I deal with that without creating animosity from other people that contributed to the article? I would also greatly appreciate any other comments on the work I have done so far. Warm regards --A. C. Santacruz (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
A. C. Santacruz, I suspect that you won't like it, but here goes. If it were me I would not start with a major project. Spend time learning your trade first. I found that took me a while, as this demonstrates. It seems clear that you don't yet have the grasp of the MoS, how to put an article together, how to balance too much and too little detail. I would suggest starting by working through a dozen or two of the battles of the Carlist Wars - start with the minor ones. Start with taking them to B class. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Maybe do some work at GoCE. Then think about taking a Carlist battle or two to GA. Then start working some through FAC.
By this time you will be on top of your sources and information and Wikipedia's recognised expert on the Carlist Wars. Then you can go for the big, summary article. Which having done all the other work on you may view differently than you do now. But whatever it is, your opinion will carry weight. Your comment re how the sections are split, one deals with it as ever with being up front and persuation. But note what I said about weight. I rewrote Second Punic War, which has 200 watchers, from a year by year account to' a theatre by theatre one with no complaints, but that was on the back of a dozen Punic War FAs and, if I say so who shouldn't, the finished product being good.
Just my quick thoughts. Make of them what you will. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! I'll definitely take it into account, and see where you're coming from. Thanks for the advice :D A. C. Santacruz (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Was this edit intentional? It appears to have been done using the "rollback vandalism" option. Stuff like that happens to me accidentally all the time (I've had to essentially disable rollback on mobile editing because of my fat fingers). Hog FarmTalk 01:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Nope. iPhone fat fingers. I left a note on Dudley's talk page and it's been sorted. But thanks for spotting it and checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Burnt Candlemas, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 16, 2021. 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/September 16, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Quoting sources in FAC reviews
It's looking like I'm going to have a lengthier review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Longstreet/archive1. I've quoted a source in a few spots - is it appropriate to quote the source directly on the FAC page, or should I move it to the FAC talk page? Hog FarmTalk 04:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The review layout looks fine to me. My preference would be to leave in on the FAC page - I find it easier to follow that way. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I also preferred the existing format, so I'm glad to here that. Hog FarmTalk 01:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
FAC
Hi Gog, if you have to withdraw Aliens due to lack of activity can I have permission to list Ghostbusters within the 2 week period? It might not be good to go within the 2 weeks, I'm thinking just in case since if Aliens drops out, I could maybe get GB1 and GB2 to FAC before the third film comes out. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake, sorry, but if Aliens is archived, there will be a mandatory two week wait. It has had four reviews, can you not chase a couple of them to convert these into supports? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The article English invasion of Scotland (1650) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:English invasion of Scotland (1650) for comments about the article. 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. Tayi ArajakateTalk 17:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I was checking on User:Dying's edits, made another edit, then reverted myself ... the issue seemed clear at first (didn't want to repeat "lead ship ... class ... lead ship ... class" right from the start), but now it's clear as mud so I better back off. The article on the class uses "was" for the class (reasonably enough), but the TFA article uses "is". Some people feel strongly about these things (or used to, maybe not now). One option I think would be to avoid tense altogether by starting off the second sentence "The last lead ship of any class of United States battleships, ...". Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 00:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Dank: "is" seems correct to me, as Iowa is still afloat. I do like 'USS Iowa is a retired battleship, the lead ship of her class and the last lead ship of any class of United States battleships.' I would recommend going with it. It also minimises the number of characters used and I will use something similar for the next lead ship blurb I write. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Works for me, I made the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you today for Crécy campaign, well timed with a battle of it OTD, and introduced: "An invading English army landed in Normandy in July 1346. During the next seven weeks it burnt and looted its way across France, coming within 2 miles of the walls of Paris. Every time it met French forces it defeated them, including at the battle of Crecy. It halted at Calais, which the English besieged and starved into submission over 11 months."! - Also OTD, pictured: Sigmund Jähn, first German in space, whose article we expanded when died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hamilcar's victory with Naravas 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 Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
ECW2
You went a bit far there with the source removal - some of them were still being used in the text I retained from the previous version. I was going to revert and then selectively remove, but thought you might still be working on it and didn't want to cause an edit conflict. Let me know if I'm free to reinstate. GirthSummit (blether) 19:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit, oops. Sorry. I was on a roll with Preston and thought I would keep going with 2ECW. Sure; if I cock up, always feel free to just revert. I was about to start adding the missing sources, or are you on to that too? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks - yes, wasn't afraid of reverting you per se, just attracting your ire if you were in the middle of a massive half-hour edit and got a conflict. I'll look at adding the needed sources now. GirthSummit (blether) 20:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Been discussing User:Dying's edits on this one on their talk page ... I think we can reduce the chances of problems at WP:ERRORS if I tweak this one to be closer to the current version of the article lead. Objections? - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Gratz on August, you seem to have emerged unscathed again. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for not only scheduling but even supplying sources for Mary Shelley, TFA 30 August and interesting to our audience if we trust the stats. I found yesterday's Main page spectacular, with 4 bolded names I brought there, all in memory: nominating the TFA, the pictured DYK (Alfred Biolek), and two under Recent deaths, Siegfried Matthus and Teresa Żylis-Gara. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Battle of Halidon Hill, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
I was eager to get that FA done, and I appreciate your help getting it wrapped up in time for the anniversary, and helping manage the date request at TFA. If you need another FA review or similar, just ping me on my talk page. Happy to reciprocate. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Shooterwalker, happy to oblige. I will store that offer away and take you up on it sometime. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Hamilcar's victory with Naravas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hamilcar's victory with Naravas for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Oroscopa 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 Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
WikiCup 2021 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, Amakuru and Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.
Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, 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 14 days of "earning" them.
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 Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Guines (1352) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Siege of Guines (1352) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Siege of Guines (1352) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Siege of Guines (1352) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Guines (1352) for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Second FAC nominations
@Amakuru, BennyOnTheLoose, Bloom6132, Epicgenius, Hog Farm, Lee Vilenski, and The Rambling Man: I am aware that several of you have asked FAC coordinator permission to nominate a second article. And have seen that I am editing and wondered why I am ignoring the requests. This is because Cwmhiraeth has asked me to "leave that sort of decision to the other coordinators during the rest of the WikiCup". I am finding this a little frustrating, and imagine that you find it more so, but as a current WikiCup participant myself I am in a difficult position and you are going to have to wait on Ian - which after all only puts you in the same position as me. I have also been asked to avoid promoting any FAcs by the seven of you for the duration. I can see that there may be the appearance of a conflict of interest in both of these areas and so am complying for now. I am afraid that this may mean that FAC is likely to be a little clunky for us eight until the WikiCup finishes. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for letting me know. I can't see that I wouldn't trust you to be fair, but I can also see why we'd not want the controversy. I'd like to state at this time - thanks for your hard work at FAC! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that's taking the request to the absurd. The initial issue was that somehow I lost 280 points because you decided to promote a FAC on the final day of the last round, while waiting for to promote two of Lee's until a day or so after (worth around 900 points). I think allowing us all to nominate additional candidates when we've all met the common criteria going forward is fine. Ignoring these reasonable requests is silly, and after all, we've been battered left, right and centre about FAC not being controlled or influenced by WikiCup. Your "involved" position is clearly questionable from some angles, but only in conditions that are "questionable". And that's not where we are now. The damage is done for this year, better we just move on and continue to improve Wikipedia the best we can. And now the damage is done, it's ironic that not moving things along just exacerbates the situation created. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, Gog the Mild. I guess it sort of makes sense, although I do think the spirit of the cup is that we're all just trying to generate as much quality material for the readers as we can, and it's hard to imagine any of us adopting underhand tactics to try to beat our competitors. Although I say that as someone who's obviously not in the running for a top 3 place, and I achieved my goal just by getting to the last round, so anything else if just a bonus! I can see why TRM is annoyed about what happened re the FAC points, but that's a flaw in the WikiCup scoring system rather than with FAC, whose timing has always been known to be inexact. We definitely need to look at improving the handling of points around the cut off date for next year. Cheers, and I echo Lee in thanking you for your service to FAC. — Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Noted, and just a reminder that I'm on the other side of the world to most of you so am just waking up to this thread, which I'll review more closely later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Lee Vilenski here. I'm personally okay with this, although frankly I don't really care about placement and am just in the thing for fun. I respect your decision here; I frankly don't see this as worth risking a controversy over. Although I'd recommend that this be something the cup coordinators work out before it starts next time - with Ealdgyth participating in the first several rounds, we could have been in a spot where only Ian could promote Cup noms for some time, which wouldn't have been ideal. Hog FarmTalk 01:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
There's a world of difference between promoting FAs at specific times, and allowing a new nomination to be added when the "usual" criteria have been met. We need to acknowledge that what has already happened was far from ideal but also that what is currently be requesting is far from controversial and get on with it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations from WikiProject Military history!
For finishing first in the August 2021 WikiProject Military history writer's contest, scoring 43 points from 4 articles. Hog FarmTalk 06:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Kinghorn 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 Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't know who to ping. I don't understand how I can do any more to prove that a work painted in 1808 is in the public domain, then to link it to a page saying it is in the public domain. Which is what I did. Serendipodous 16:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There are other people around who do image reviews, but few know the area as well as Nikkimaria. Anyway, I did some work for you, and found something published in 1810 featuring the image, so hopefully with that detailed on the image page, it should be the end of it. Harrias(he/him) •talk 16:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Serendipodous added "permissions" to the image, based on Harrias's evidence. I think it should be fine now, but Nikkimaria will need to clear it for you. FYI, it is typically necessary to add permissions if the creation date and publishing date differ. SusunW (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Appreciate all the help. I don't know the first thing about image curation. I think Nikkimaria assumed I did. Serendipodous 18:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Serendipodous, just an FYI, you as the person who brought the article to FAC are responsible to ensure that all images as well as text, citations, etc. meet our policies. I don't think Nikkimaria thought you were an expert, but she had an expectation that you had reviewed them or would be able to make sure they met our policies. I don't consider myself an image expert, usually I collaborate with others when proving images, but I am fairly proficient at research. Typically, before I nominate anything for GA or FA, I have someone look them over for me to make sure I haven't missed anything because my first FA nomination was brutal when it came to the image review. I'm happy to try to help if you need it at another point. SusunW (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
SusunW I've had 28 successful FACs. I have never had to endure an image review like this. I have certainly never had to go to such trouble to prove that a 200+ year old painting which has been lying in the Wikimedia Commons for over 15 years is in the public domain. Serendipodous 19:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I get it Serendipodous. I had close to 30 images in my first nomination. Definitely made me cautious about trying again. But, I will say, I learned a lot from that process, most importantly gained help from two real experts, so as I said, if it ever happens again, I am glad to try to help. SusunW (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. That means alot :) Serendipodous 21:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Battle of Kinghorn you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Battle of Kinghorn for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Gog, thanks for all your advice, mentorship, and hand holding over the years. I've greatly enjoyed all of your top-notch work that I've gotten a chance to review and really appreciated your help of me (and other editors). It means a lot and really makes a difference; I finally got an article through FAC without needing your reviewing-- that's a pretty big milestone in my book :) Who knows, I might even try to do it again. Keep up the great work! Eddie891TalkWork 02:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Eddie, that is very generous of you. And your praise is making me blush. No need for you to be over modest, you class as an old hand at FAC now. When I was closing your latest offering I just thought "Ah, another from Eddie, they know what they're doing. I need to go through the motions, but I'm sure it'll be fine." And it was. I look forward to your fifth nomination, what do you have in mind? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, I think I can get two or three more Lincoln and Whitman articles up to FA, past that I'm not entirely sure-- I'd like to get a woman's article nominated sooner or later. I'm trying to branch my content out to be more diverse more in general. As far as that goes, I've got some high-ish quality GAs such as Mildred Mottahedeh and Lilias Margaret Frances, Countess Bathurst, but none that are quite there yet. I'm still averaging one FAC every six months or so, so I'd like to speed that average up a little... And don't sell yourself short, you did and do make a big difference in my editing All the best, -- Eddie891TalkWork 11:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Battle of Kinghorn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Kinghorn for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Battle of Oroscopa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Oroscopa for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Resolving unresolvable conflicts between RS
So User:Hog Farm/Black Terror (ship) just needs me to flesh out the lead before it would be ready to publish. I was hoping for GA or A-class until I turned up the Smith source, but the one ship/two ships conflict between sources will obviously need to be better addressed for even B-class. I would guess with your work in ancient warfare that you've run into similar unreconcilable conflicts between RS accounts. Can you think of a better way to weave these together? I suspect the Smith source may be right, but the majority run with the other approach. Hog FarmTalk 00:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
It's been 5 days without a comment. The majority now support. Can we close as promote? Serendipodous 00:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
A quick skim suggests that both image and source reviews are outstanding, so no. I shall have a more thorough look through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell there is only one remaining complaint in the image review (that colour-blind people would have problems seeing the orbit diagram), and I've responded to it twice (that the relevant orbits are clearly labelled so the colours aren't needed) but without comment from @Nikkimaria:. So again I am left wondering what exactly I am supposed to do. Serendipodous 18:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Possibly you could reread my various comments around this. I leave as an "exercise for the class" selecting an appropriate way to respond to them. (Appropriate meaning that most likely to get the FAC promoted.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747) for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Breteuil 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 Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you today for Roman withdrawal from Africa (255 BC), introduced (as a battle): "When I nominated Battle of the Aegates I wrote "the third and final installment of my trio of naval battles from the First Punic War". I was wrong. Missing was this, the Carthaginian's worst naval defeat of the 23-year-long war; which was swiftly followed by the Roman's worst disaster of the war - a storm sank most of their fleet, killing over 100,000."! - I have a former machinery hall on the same page, which became a venue for Beethoven's Fidelio. I took pics, but it came without, - two on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Today: a woman in red, two who died under "in memoriam" and LouisAlain missed - my first editnotice read: "Every editor is a human being" which is quoted from a comment by Geometry guy in a 2012 discussion on WP:AN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Siege of Breteuil you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Breteuil for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Hamilcar's victory with Naravas
On 18 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hamilcar's victory with Naravas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an army commanded by Hannibal's father was saved from defeat when part of the enemy force deserted and fought alongside him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hamilcar's victory with Naravas. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hamilcar's victory with Naravas), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Battle of the Bagradas River (c. 240 BC), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hundred Years' War (1345–1347) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Apparently there is no rule forbidding an editor from requesting a GA class review on an article that has not yet had a B class review. To me this seems like putting the cart before the horse. But since I know you are a veteran user who knows what a good article is supposed to look like, I decided to do the Hundred Years' War (1345–1347) review. Djmaschek (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) That's right, there's no rules about prior assessments for any level of review. When I wrote MilHist articles, I was always conservative, going through B-Class, then GAN, then ACR, and finally FAC. I didn't really need to after a while, and Gog frequently eschews ACR before FAC too, and hasn't come off worse for it. I have to admit that a factor in my continuing with ACRs was that points-wise you got more bang for your buck in the monthly article-writing contest with A-Class compared to B, GA and FA... ;) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) - I personally only use B-class if I have doubts or don't plan on taking it to GAN. I've written enough about some subjects that I have a pretty decent feel about when things are ready, and I reckon Gog does as well. Hog FarmTalk 01:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I mostly use B class assessment if I need points for the contest, otherwise going straight in at GAN. As Hog Farm notes, after a while one develops a feel for what is ready for what, and for the most part when I am working on an article I have FAC in mind. I have seen C class articles successfully nominated at FAC by an experienced editor (not me). As pointed out, there are no rules around this, merely an editor's reputation if they fluff their self assessment. Hopefully I didn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I have just checked, I have created 17 articles, including Hundred Years' War (1345–1347), and 7 are currently Featured, with an 8th at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356) for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Hundred Years' War (1345–1347) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hundred Years' War (1345–1347) for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I am officially 1/2 way through Africa!!!★★¡¡¡ I think I can get one more in before the month ends and then I am rewarding myself in October to do a woman for Women in Green's October editathon, before I get back to the slog. Have you given thought to my proposal? Bad idea? Good idea? Just meh? SusunW (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Newsletter WikiProject Worcestershire
Worcestershire - one of England's oldest and still existing (with some minor boundary changes) ceremonial and political shires, famous for its nearly 1000 year old cathedral, the River Severn, the AONB of the Malvern Hills, some of the oldest schools in the country, England's fastest growing university, apples, pears, cider and cricket, and of course its world famous sauce. The Wikiproject is now in need of some attention. Created 12 years ago, this project amassed a huge resource for editors working on all kinds of articles and categories related in some way or another to the county. Kudpung is more or less retired from Wikipedia getting on for 2 years ago and it would be good if a group of editors could get it up to date and continue to maintain it. Opt out of this message list here. WikiProject Worcestershire 14:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon
Double Sharp and I believe Ceres (dwarf planet) should be moved to its formal name, 1 Ceres, parallel to e.g. 50000 Quaoar. However, we don't want to destabilize the article during FAC. On the other hand, I don't want to wait and then have the argument that it must stay at its current name because that's what it passed FAC under. Any advice? Could the title maybe be part of the FAC? — kwami (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi kwami. No, any change of article for technical reasons is outwith the scope of FAC. For a current example, see the discussion on the talk page of a (one of mine) current FAC Third English Civil War. Or earlier this month during the FAC discussion of another of my nominations, Battle of the Bagradas River (240 BC), it was pointed out that the title needed changing. I agreed that this was the case so, after the FAC was over, moved it. Whether the title of an article needs to change has nothing to do with what it was called when it passed FAC (assuming it does). If that argument crops up, feel free to ping me in. IMO, the best place to discuss a possible title change is on the article's talk page, and this is entirely independent of the FAC process - except if a new title is agreed it should not be implemented until any FAC is closed. Copying Ian Rose in as a more experienced coordinator who may have a different view and or something to add. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Pinging @Double sharp: he was the one who suggested the move request. — kwami (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Kwami, I assume that you have noted WP:COMMONNAME stating "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) ..." and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) stating "Common names should be used for article titles, provided they are unambiguous". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes. This is more the need for a dab. All but 5 minor planets have their MPC number as part of the title, even though they are generally called by just their name once their identity is established. (E.g. 4 Vesta.) This is true even when the name would be unambiguous as a WP title. (E.g. Lomia > 117 Lomia.) The only other MP dabbed with (dwarf planet) is Eris, but we wanted to include all 5 in the move request. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's about natural disambiguation. Ceres needs disambiguation because of the goddess, so 1 Ceres (adding the official minor planet number) seems better than Ceres (dwarf planet) (adding parenthetical disambiguation). Double sharp (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! Hog FarmTalk 03:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2021.
Current and upcoming events
September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today!
Drive and Blitz reports
June Blitz: From 20 to 26 June, 6 participating editors claimed 16 copy edits, focusing on requests and articles tagged in March and April. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
July Drive: Almost 575,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 24 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here.
August Blitz: From 15 to 21 August, we copy edited articles tagged in April and May 2021 and requests. 9 participating editors completed 17 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Other news
June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis.
New maintenance template added to our project scope: After a short discussion in June, we added {{cleanup tense}} to the list of maintenance templates that adds articles to the Guild's copy editing backlog categories. This change added 198 articles, spread over 97 months of backlog, to our queue. We processed all of those articles except for those from the three or four most recent months during the July backlog elimination drive (Here's a link to a "tense" discussion during the drive).
Progress report: As of 18:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 468 requests since 1 January and there were 60 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above).
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 13 reviews between July and September 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Truce of Calais 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 Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The article Truce of Calais you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Truce of Calais for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Gog the Mild. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Galatas, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, and all who helped, today for Battle of Bergerac, introduced: "The first nine years of the Hundred Years' War had created an expensive stalemate on all fronts. Then the Earl of Derby arrived in Gascony with a small force. Within three weeks he had smashed the French force assembling at Bergerac and captured the town, marking the start of sixteen months of spectacular success."! - Defeated on AN, but with two Recent death articles on the same page, Mordechai Geldman and Evelyn Richter, and in waiting, Luis de Pablo, - sad but rewarding to remember them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. I had to go to two grave sites last week, one who died now, one who died 10 years ago, so standing upright and in black seems appropriate. More colours - but subdued - can be had on hikes, - updated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Query
Hi Gog,
I assume you haven't scheduled Carillon for TFA as you voted in the nomination and therefore cannot/should not? Thrakkx (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Thrakkx. It will be scheduled for 27 November. I have only got to the 25th so far in terms of doing hte back room donkey work to make the scheduling happen. Carillon will probably be "officially" confirmed tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Apologies for being anxious! Thrakkx (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
No worries. It's fine to check. A nice article which I am sure will fascinate many main page browsers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
Hello! Your submission of Mathos at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
) you will see a mix of "closed" and "open" layouts. Hopefully you can see how much easier it is to both read and amend the "open" ones. Similarly, blank spaces within an individual "closed" source help (me, at any rate) with readability and if one wishes to insert new data. Compare this with here (a current FAC from anther editor). I assume that the latter is in your preferred style, but to me it is a near-impenetrable wall of text. I find it almost impossible to identify an individual work in there, much less a specific detail.
.) And let's not even think about WP:IAR! 
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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hasdrubal, son of Hanno for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
. So clearly the magic ingredient is Hawkeye's hook writing skill. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
; see Talk:Hasdrubal, son of Hanno for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.
The Wikipedia Library
.jpg)
Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by .svg){kind=small}
Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. 
The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with 
Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.
Hog Farm (submissions), 
HaEr48 (submissions), 
Harrias (submissions) and 
Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
. I mean, De bello gallico cited as a source about 50 times - oh, yeah, sure that's going to be an RS!
Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
And again on the 1st. Glutton for punishment. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.
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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Burnt Candlemas for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
; see Talk:Burnt Candlemas for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are .svg){kind=small}
Gog the Mild, 
BennyOnTheLoose, 
Amakuru and 
Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.
.jpg){kind=small}
Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, 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 14 days of "earning" them.
Hello, Gog the Mild. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Galatas, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
