Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Hey, Gog! You asked at User talk:Vanamonde93/Main page editor about tasks at DYK. One common task is setting preps -- pulling approved hooks into a prep set -- which is a bit like putting together a complicated puzzle. For instance, we alternate within a prep set the bio and non-bio hooks. We don't want more than a certain number of US hooks or military hooks or music hooks. We need a quirky in the last slot. We can't use all long hooks, or all short ones. And if today's set has a bio hook in the image slot, tomorrow's set get a non-bio image. We need a new set every day, and it's often best if a single editor tries to do a full set, or at least to do most of the hooks in that set, just to prevent working at cross-purposes. If the MPE proposal eventually passes, it's quite likely multiple of our current prep setters will apply for the right, which means they won't have as much time to set preps (plus they probably shouldn't move preps they've set to queue), which means we'll need more prep setters. If you're interested, I can show you how to start. Ping me if you respond here, real life is keeping me from maintaining good control over my watch list right now. --valereee (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: That sounds like the sort of thing which might interest me. I hung around DYK a fair bit when I was putting my noms in frequently. (They were all GAs, apart from one FA, so I anticipate having to crank my standards down.) I am expecting being busy IRL for the next 48 hours. But if you would care to give pointers as to the first lesson, I will work through it when I can and get back to you. Or should I ping again when I am more available? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you have time is great! The first thing I would do is read Wikipedia:Did you know and Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Supplementary_guidelines#Rules_of_thumb_for_preparing_updates. Realize that when you move a hook to prep, you are basically saying, "I agree with the reviewer that this hook satisfies DYK rules." The reviewer is supposed to have checked that all the rules were indeed followed. But I find issues, and I'm actually the third check. Prep setters provide what is basically the second check. For your first lesson: What change do new GAs often require, and why does DYK need stricter requirements in that area?

Second lesson: promote some hooks into a prep. Instructions for promoting a hook are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Instructions_on_how_to_promote_a_hook. It involves having multiple pages open at a time. I would start with the lowest empty set, even if there are empty ones above it, as this gives you the most time to set the prep while receiving input from other experienced prep setters like Yoninah and Cwmhiraeth, who will likely be here to comment on your work soon after you start setting. :) --valereee (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes tell me more Tbiw (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Gascon campaign of 1345, introduced: "The Hundred Years' War was started when Philip VI of France confiscated the English fief of Gascony. Despite this, activities in Gascony during the war receive little attention - in the general literature as well as on Wikipedia. I have been attempting to remedy the latter situation and so would like to present for FAC an account of "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Year's War"! - I have a FAC in need open, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

Just wanted to let you know the "primary" editor of Arthur Gilligan found that I introduced three unintentional factual errors to the article which were the result of minor word changes resulting from my limited understanding of cricket. My apologies! I gather this is to be added to a list of other pre-TFA copy edited articles where errors occurred to be presented to you at some future date. Oh, thanks for the recent TFA article view stats. Cheers, Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

The comments you added here look like they belong to a specific FAC, but they've ended up on the general talk page for all FACs. --RL0919 (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919: Gah! How embarrassing. Thanks for letting me know. Fixed. I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine now, and in the annals of WP's worst mistakes, I don't think this one will rate. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RL0919. It was aimed at a couple of editors whose article I am mentoring - ineptly, clearly - towards FAC. Don't tell them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog I was a little testy when I responded about the footnote, and although I hope that did not come through in the response, I fear it may have. If so, please accept my apologies. I know that you are somewhat embroiled in issues of copy editing right now, and it's not my intention to add to that. I will say, though, that with WP's requirement for summary style and concision, it's often not possible to provide a detailed explanation of some aspects of any given subject. I always strive to convey nuances I don't feel able to expand upon fully in very carefully chosen words, and it can be quite frustrating when a well-intentioned copy editor comes along and, for the laudable sake of clarity of prose, effectively strips the narrative of that nuance. It doesn't help that the 55th (West Lancashire) Division article is missing a significant chunk of context about the difficulties both the TF and the military authorities faced before and on the outbreak of WWI, which is why I've unfortunately felt it necessary to oppose at FAC (and that's a shame, because I know from long ago how diligent an editor the nom is). Anyways, Merry Christmas, or whatever well-wishing phrase is appropriate for you at this time of year. Factotem (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Factotem: No need to apologise. You did come across as a little irritated, but it was fair enough - you were right and I was wrong. Simples. I don't have your depth of knowledge of the pre-WWI period, but you can probably tell from my FAC comments - and my copy edit comments and the fact that I ducked the ACR - that I have concerns about the article. I am going to recommend that they take it away and rework it. I am happy to input into this, and I shall recommend that they seek your contributions.

Copy editing - as a copy editor that is just the sort of unintentional loss of nuance I dread. Hopefully I do it rarely.

And the most Christmasy of Christmases to you too.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, my challenge was fair but not fairly made, and there's no excuse for that. I shall try and do better in future. Have a good 'un. Factotem (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on at the Easter Rising talk page about whether the rising should be considered part of the Great War in the infobox because it was significantly influenced by it. Can you please contribute? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here since the threads seem to have disappeared ... Harry (HJ) hasn't been active (or wasn't till my ping ... actually, several inactive people have become semi-active again after getting my pings for these older blurbs!) Carcharoth saw that and stepped in to help with several of Harry's war memorial blurbs, and he and Harry were happy with the results. It's fine that you did the blurb, they'll probably like it, but it's best to ping both of them to look at it, I think.

Good Topics: It's probably GAN-discrimination, but for the 16 years that TFA has been going on, we haven't mentioned Good Topics. (Of course, a Good Topic can change to a Featured Topic.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank. The threads have reappeared. Thanks for the responses. Both make sense. Harry seemed active enough when I was reviewing his Midland Railway War Memorial for ACR. I ended up taking a tape measure down to do some OR and he still owes me a pint. I'll ping Carcharoth in.

Fine. I had a momentary panic. Are we happy flagging up FTs and not GTs? (I note that this GT is 8/12ths of the way to an FT.)

Probably best to continue this on the blurb page. Apologies for the hiatus. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE December 2019 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 22:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yes my brother happy Christmas and boxing day may we see more of it. Tbiw (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Hello Gog the Mild:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Let sing or form a Christmas song Tbiw (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Golden Wiki
		As voted by the members of the project, please accept this Golden Wiki as the Military Historian of the Year for 2019. Well done on your back to back wins! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulation Gog, mightily well deserved! Harrias ^talk 08:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me, also, Gog. Thanks for your efforts throughout 2019 and all the best for 2020. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67, AustralianRupert, and Harrias: Thanks guys. Congratulations from veterans like you three is especially appreciated. You all have happy new years. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Battle of Calais, "an everyday story of 14th-century folk. Knightly honour and dishonour; bribery and treason; cunning schemes and an incognito king; captivity and ransoms; truces and treachery; revenge and torture. They didn't have Wikipedia in the 14th century, so they had to make their own entertainment."! Wishing vision for 2020! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Razing of Friesoythe. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks Eddie: A happy and productive new year to you too. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you've got (e)mail :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers 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. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup 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. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just came across Wikipedia talk:Good articles § 2019 Good article reviews statistics where you are tied at 5th place for GA reviews in 2019. More than one per week, a considerable service! Well done! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I keep track of my reviews and thought that I had done more. But I picked up at least five GANs which had been opened and abandoned by other reviewers and I assume that these didn't get counted. Plus I have five currently open, so that probably explains it. What I hadn't realised was how well that compared with other reviewers, so thanks for that. I am a little shocked. Interesting to see so many active MilHist members in the top slots. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog - I read through this discussion about the GA review backlog with interest yesterday, and have been mulling it over. I've long been against the idea of QPQ for GA reviews, believing that each of us should do what we are good at and enjoy doing - as you know, I spend much of my time removing vandalism and spam, and doing new page reviews, and I'd like to think that I earn enough brownie points that way to justify asking for the occasional GA review from an experienced editor, but I've never felt quite confident enough to attempt a GA review myself. However, I appreciate the frustration that a big backlog can cause (nobody has picked up St Rufus Church yet, it's been almost a week!), so perhaps it's time I dipped my toe in that particular pool. In that discussion, an editor mentions the idea of mentoring GA reviewers - is this something that you would consider doing for me (or can you point me in the direction of someone who does GA review mentoring)? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth Summit. I have always tried to review two GANs for each one I ran. When I was generating two or three a week I struggled; since concentrating on FAs I have a few "in the bank". See comment immediately above. I have discovered this - Wikipedia:Good article help/mentor - to which I have just added my name, and I would be happy to talk you through a couple. Do you have a potential target?

A week, ha! I assume that you have looked at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, ah - yes, I probably should have been able to find that myself if I'd searched a bit harder. (I hadn't looked at the Report page, but I was joking about the week, honest!). Thanks for your offer - much appreciated. Thinking that I should maybe start out with a subject that's within my comfort zone - what about St. Peter's Church (Queenstown, Maryland)? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Put a brief holding comment on the GAN page to "reserve" it. I suggest not mentioning that you are a first timer. Cut and paste this table in. Run the article through Earwig, click "Turnitin". If there is nothing alarming there, put 'y' after "copyright and plagiarism". Check the article history and decide whether you can put a 'y' after "stable". Click on each image, then on "More details": check that "Source" is "own work" or gives you a valid copy of the image; check that "Licensing" gives free use or PD in both the country of origin and the US; check that nothing seems obviously odd or suspicious about this last claim. If all images are fine for all of this. put 'y' after "freeortaggedpics".

Report back here, flagging up any issues or queries. Note that at this point there is no necessity for you to have read the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so...

• The article is stable, no problems there.
• Earwig was a bit grumpy. There are a few sentences that will need to be paraphrased as they appear to have been copy/pasted more or less verbatim from online sources, and there is a substantial quote (attributed) from the National Register of Historic Places - I'm not sure if that really needs to be there.

Bearing in mind Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing I agree. Specifically: "The parish of St. Peter's was formed in 1765, and the chapel constructed soon thereafter was the third permanent mission established"; "The enlarged 1877 structure is a good example of Victorian-Gothic church architecture"; and "The interior is virtually intact from the Victorian construction period, and contains all of the 1877 stained glass and altar furniture" need rephrasing IMO. Write an action point on the GAN stating so, including the link to Earwig.

• The photographs are all 'own work', no worries there. The published image of Cecil Calvert has a happy green tick from FlickrevieweR, so I assume it's legit. The map I'm not quite 100% about - it's old (18th C), but was produced in the UK rather than the US - seems to have been copied from here - does it need any additional copyright tags?

It does. Well spotted. It needs a tag for its home country, as well as the existing US one. Happily, as we know that it was published before 1923 and can assume that its creator has been dead for at least a century, I stuck in the all purpose {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-expired}} for you.

GirthSummit _(blether) 14:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One action for you above.

Now read the article. If you are happy with "broadness", "focus", "neutral" and "originalresearch", indicate so on the checklist. If not, let me know. Does it comply with the MoS for the four areas in the checklist? You can't downcheck it for other MoS non-compliances, although you may wish to mention them, making it clear that they will not effect your GAN judgement. Was "the prose ... clear and concise ... and the spelling and grammar ... correct"? If not, either copy edit it yourself, or flag up each case on the GAN page. Then report back here again. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, thanks - I've got to go out now, but I'll get onto this later this evening or tomorrow. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, I've read through the article to get an overview. There are some small points, which I haven't listed yet (places where the prose could be improved, a couple of not-quite-neutral statements, that sort of thing) but I've got a broader concern. A large part of the article (I haven't done a precise word count, but I think it's probably the majority of the verbiage) isn't actually about the church itself - it's about the historical background of Catholics in Maryland. That makes me unsure whether I could tick the 'focus' box without either a significant expansion of the discussion of the church, or a significant trimming of the historical background. Could you take a quick look and let me know what you think before I start getting into making lists of words I think should be changed? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this a bit further, I'm not quite sure about the 'neutral' box either, on account of the historical stuff. There's quite a lot of mateerial along the lines of 'Catholics were oppressed', 'Catholics were not treated well', about Claireborne's deep hatred of Catholics (even though he doesn't seem to have had any direct involvement in the establishment of this church), and about the treatment of Catholics during the Plundering Time - none of this is really contextualised, and I come away with a slight sense of... I'm not sure what exactly. Partisanship? Advocacy? Perhaps not quite, but it doesn't quite feel right for an article that should be focussed on a particular church. The stuff about the building itself looks fine - one or two phrases that could be toned down or attributed perhaps (e.g. who says it's a good example of Victorian Gothic?), but nothing that couldn't be addressed with a bit of light copy editing. My feeling is that if the history section was significantly trimmed, enough to give context for the foundation of the church itself but leaving out stuff that would be better addressed in an article about the history of Catholicism in the early American colonies, we might be back into neutral territory. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. And good prioritising. IMO most of the first paragraph of Geography and all of History needs to go or be drastically slimmed. And while this is only GA, the description of the church as it is today seems thin to me. So personally I definitely wouldn't tick focus, and probably not broadness. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - edit conflict there. If the history section is trimmed, that would probably address the neutrality concerns, so I'll try to put something tactful along those lines on the GA review page and ping the proposer. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog - so, I made some comments and the author has done a lot of work to the text now. How to you feel about the text now? I think that the focus is much tighter, and the content somewhat broader - would you tick those boxes now if you were in my shoes? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth. If it were me, and it isn't, I would give it the benefit of the doubt. It is still heavy on the history side, but most of the trivia has gone. It covers enough description to get a tick on that from me. It's not how I would write it, but that's not the point. IMO it meets 3a and 3b. (Several sections could do with retitling though.) If you felt the it was unfocused, then I think that would be a defensible position. That help? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, yep, thanks - just wanted a second opinion, since it's my first time and these criteria are a bit subjective. I agree on the titling, I'll probably make some suggestions along those lines. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - the author has reorganised the structure a bit (moved things around) and changed one or two of the section titles. I'd be content to tick 1a, 1b and 2c, but I wouldn't mind a steer on whether the citations are properly formatted - I'm not intimately familiar with the Harvard style, it looks alright to me but you might spot something I've missed. Any other concerns? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit:

• Page ranges should be separated by en dashes, not hyphens. I have fixed that using a tool. For some reason cite 29 is still a problem.
• US Post Office abbreviations should not be used to identify states; so in "Baltimore, MD" MD needs either expanding, or scrapping. (Given that most people could be expected to have a rough idea where Baltimore is, I would go for b.)
• There is something wrong with cite 35. It is not a web link, so should be in Harvard style for consistency. But checking I see that the url is there but blanked. Unblanking it should resolve the issue.

Overall the citations are in pretty good order. Better than I usually manage.

Skimming, I can't see anything else to alarm me.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - looks like SN fixed the issue with ref 29, I've unblanked that URL and removed the post code. What's the next step - tick all the boxes and give it a GA logo, or is there more work to do? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit: Your call.. Personally I see no reason why you shouldn't promote it, per 2.4.1 of Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...and because I get the feeling that its important to others here too I've decided to do a run for the 2019 year. Its gonna be a little more difficult this year though since my primary source for the material to be checked is missing, but I'll figure something out. For now though I need to get back to work on my day job stuff; I'll get started on the project this evening if there is time. If you'd like to help your welcome to, I'll tell you what I do and where I go to cross check for stuff. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 Happy to help. Just point me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first power outage of the new year. Unexpected, but it happens. (That god for mobile devices) Anyway... To compile the list for the awards we'll need to check the featured articles, lists, and pictures, and since the post didn't run any featured content stories past April the last four moths will need to be accounted for manually through the records - I guess from FAC, FLC, and FPC pages (i've actually never tried that before). We'll build the list at User:TomStar81/2019, keeping in mid the following guidelines for the end of the year awards:

• Be Generous. By default anyone whose done work within the Military history WikiProject over the last year is at a minimum eligible for the WikiChevrons for Milhist work and the Epic Barnstar for work within the field of history. There are four tabs I keep open that track awards for this, the pages are Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards (partuclarly the bottom of the page which lists general awards), Wikipedia:Barnstars, Wikipedia:Awards by WikiProject, and Wikipedia:Other awards, and I do my best to account for all possible awards that editors in a given year could receive, so to the extent that the awards description permits it pile it on. Additionally, be on the look out for extraordinary contributions, as those who have done truly remarkable things last year may meet the requirements for a Chevrons w/ Oak Leaves nomination (assuming they are not disqualified by the nomination criteria).
• Don't link to user names while compiling the list, and use nowiki tags for the awards sections while building them. Otherwise, the ping system may inadvertently alert users of the awards we're putting to gather for them, and we don't want people to be spoiled by seeing it coming, its better they get to experience it first hand.
• Do a thorough content check. Some FA and FL class articles (such as biography articles) may not be geared specifically toward milhist but may include in the article mentions or applications for or related to military service - Elvis Presley, for example, is famous for his music, but did put two years in the army as an enlisted guy, so work on an Elvis Presley article could qualify an editor for shout out. Same goes for Featured Pictures, sometimes you think a picture has nothing to do with milhist and when you check the articles the image appears in you'll find a military application. You'll need to use a degree of discretion here, sometimes the difference between awarding and not award comes down to a difference of opinions, but as noted above being generous is part of this process.
• Watch for barnstar free zones. Once or twice when I've gotten to the handing out the awards phase I've found a barnstar free zone. If it happens exchange the bling for a thanks and move on.

I figure we can split the work and each get two months from the signpost and four months of candidate checking, if that is agreeable to you. If you like, I can reinstate my 2018 award page and you can look at that to see what I did there to get a sense for how the 2019 page should look as it gets built. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom. Are we just looking for featured content? If so, a large part of it could be picked up from The Bugle. (Also all of the new A class if needed.) Given my reviewing, blurb writing and copy editing activities around FAC I would be happy to take on all of the FAs. (Listed here.) I know nothing about FPs and only a little more about FLs, so maybe they are for you. There are also, IMO, some barnstar-worthy achievements in Gt and FT - I would be happy to dig these out.

Yes please, a look at last year's would be handy; I am feeling vague as to what the finished product should look like. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored my 2018 list, its here if you want to look at it. Note that this is from the tail end of the tabulation, the start of it looks very different. Also note that this is what works best for me, you will undoubtedly figure out something that will work best for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate I saw you are working with the Military History Article Writing Contest in last month's Bungle edition. I've moved the text to the January edition because I believe it summarises more the recent news from December and the last month's edition summarises more the November news. Or is this a mistake? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's good CPA-5. Thanks for having my back. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar, for placing second in the December 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 40 points from three articles. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you did the source review on Teriitaria II before the article was promoted to A-class. It is now an FAC so feel free to look at the nomination. Векочел (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 44 reviews between October and December 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you do it for the 2020 JNU Attack article. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dey subrata, done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dey subrata, please see SerTanmay#Misc_fixes --DBigXrayᗙ 17:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feature article reviews have been introduced to the WikiCup for the first time this year. There was some reluctance by the FAC community about permitting this as they did not want the quality of FAC reviews to be lowered. As a result we adopted this rule, mentioned on the WikiCup scoring page. "You must mention in your review that you are planning to claim WikiCup points for the review." So please add such a statement to your review of Randall Davidson, and any other reviews of FACs in the future for which you wish to claim WikiCup points. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, a little oddly, I spotted the rule and added a statement five minutes before you posted this. Is the wording satisfactory? Apologies for having been unaware of this when I completed the review, and thanks for the reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is fine. Hopefully, doing a FAR will be a step towards contestants attempting to achieve featured status for their own projects. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cwmhiraeth: a query. "My" article Battle of Lagos has just been promoted to FA. Am I in order to score it in the WikiCup? Thanks. Relatively limited work carried out on it this year - see here and here. (Rather more on the last day of 2019 - [1] .) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can score for that, because we have relaxed the rule that previously said you must have done substantial work on the article during the contest, and now it is merely that you must have done substantial work at some time.

You claimed for the GAR of History of Filipino Americans - what is the status of that review? It appears to be incomplete. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth: Thank you. Claimed. It is incomplete. I have no idea what I was thinking. (I had possibly just been scoring at GoCE, which works differently.) Anyway, apologies and removed. Although I hope that it will be back before the end of the round. Are all newbies this difficult? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This archival cleanup by you seems mostly OK, but you marked two refs with url-status=dead which I've switched back to live, since for me they're live.

Assuming that I'm correct :), this is only a minor bug, since the only "bad" effect is that readers will be more likely to go to the archive than the live source.

Hope this feedback is useful - overall, this sort of bot-aided archiving is a critically important long-term task for Wikipedia's verifiability, so thanks for doing the work! Boud (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boud. It is indeed. I'll try to see if I can track down the cause. I reckon that if everyone did a bit of Wiki-gnome archiving things would be a lot sounder. So I do what I can. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, when I run the bot again, it now agrees that they are indeed live. Sorry 'bout that. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

Sir, I apologize for delay in responding. If the offer on the collaboration on the Battle of Phintias is still valid, I would like to seek your guidance. Regards, Maglorbd (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maglorbd, good to hear from you. Yes, it is open, so long as you don't mind it being a bit of a slow burner - I have rather a lot of open commitments at the moment, and seem to be getting through them slowly.

I have hard copies of Goldsworthy, Bagnall and Miles. Lazenby of course is available on line. I have recently taken Battle of Cape Ecnomus through FAC and put Battle of the Aegates up for GAN. Reading through them will give you an idea of what I have in mind for Battle of Phintias. If you are OK with my general approach let me know and I propose to then add some of the "standard" bits from the other two articles and give Battle of Phintias a good copy edit. (I do some work for GoCE.) We can then discuss which of my changes you do and don't like, and how to move it further forward. Rereading it I think that A class should be achievable and it may be reasonable to aspire higher.

What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get you to cast your eyes over Reginald de Warenne with an eye to an FAC reasonably soon? Yes, that means I'll be doing reviews more also. I'm going to ask @SandyGeorgia: to look it over also... anyone else watching this page or his is welcome to copyedit, with the understanding that I'll be watching like a hawk for any distortions of the sourcing.... I realize he's a bit before your time but ... it can't be THAT difficult! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Aegates 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 Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of the Aegates you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Aegates for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I think, since your GA review was opened but never started in earnest, the best thing to do would be for you to request a G7 speedy deletion of the page. If you'd prefer, I can do a G6. I'll adjust the GA nominee template so that it uses page 2 again rather than page 3. Thanks, and sorry this one didn't work out. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset. If you could point me towards a "How to do a G7" page I will do it, or if it is easier all round for you to do a G6, that is fine by me. If you are suspecting that I haven't a Scooby what either of those are, you are correct. Yes, I picked up three GANs from the same nominator; two have gone through fine, this one we have a perfectly friendly difference of opinion over, so I threw it back for another reviewer's opinion. More detail is on the nominator's talk page. And thanks for keeping an eye on this sort of thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, what you need to do is put the following line at the top of the page you want deleted (though the G7 can only be used when you're the sole editor of the page, as in this case): <noinclude>{{Db-g7}}</noinclude>

The instructions around speedy deletions in general are at WP:SPEEDY, with the key paragraph on how to place such a nomination being the second in the Introduction to criteria section. (You will want to use the noinclude tags regardless of what it says.) There's also the WP:G7 section much lower on the page, which explains this particular request. However, if you don't want to get into all this, I'm happy to take care of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset Sadly, the instructions (like so much of Wikipedia) make absolutely no sense to me. However, I can cut and paste to the top of a page. As Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA2 no longer seems to exist - which I assume is the issue - I have put it at the top of Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA3. I assume that the main editor will then need to renominate? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, sorry, I wasn't clear enough. It looks like you created the Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA3 page and asked for it to be deleted at the same time. That can stand, since the page will need to be deleted now that you've created it. However, what you need to do now is also put the request at the top of the Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA2 page, which does still exist—just click on the link in this sentence and you're there. Then add the deletion request on that page. The editor does not need to renominate, and I'll take care of all the changes to the Talk:Mayaguez incident page. Thanks—and next time (or still, if you'd prefer), I'll take care of it entirely. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BlueMoonset. It would seem that one of my over-eager minions has already done this. Clearly I need to give them some content creation to do. And thanks for sorting out the renomination side. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your image and source review at the Marshall's Elm FAC, but you might want to pop back and add your signature! Harrias ^talk 20:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, helpful that. More haste less speed. I thought that I would cut and paste my ACR reviews while in the midst of something else, remembered to delete the old signatures, but forgot what that implied! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it happens. I have a worrying number of minor edits with summaries such as "ce, fix" or "oops, fix", which are just going back and sorting stupid stuff I've done. Anyway, I think I might be spending more of the next week or so reading rather than writing, as I'm getting my hands on some books to tackle one of the biggies. (User:Harrias/Edgehill). Harrias ^talk 20:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exciting. Which one? Nick-D once claimed that "I'm pretty sure that my most common edit summary is 'fix' (referring to fixing stuff I just added!)". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a bad day, aren't I. I should have guessed - the shambolic one. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest, they were pretty much all shambolic for the first 18 months. Each engagement was simply win by the least incompetent. Even Fairfax, for all his relative excellence, was pretty idiotic at times. Harrias ^talk 22:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So true. I love the neat little rectangles in dead straight lines on the map. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for for the barnstar a while back by the time. It seems to have mostly passed me by at the time, and I apparently didn't say anything! I genuinely enjoy reviewing articles, but I can get a bit carried away with it at times, so it is nice to know that it is appreciated nonetheless. Harrias ^talk 11:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, I've nominated Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy, if you could please pick it up. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report Our 2019 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress (a record low backlog!); Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Automated archiving of requests; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2020. – Your Guild coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And thank you; it's nice to be appreciated. Another couple of sessions and we should be able to wrap it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Aegates, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Battle of the Aegates in 241 BC ended the First Punic War after 23 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Aegates. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of the Aegates), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

You are a coordinator at one of the most active WikiProkjects, so I wanted to get your brief input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen. I see a few possible options for making this happen, so I would like to get your input and feedback on this. which of the options below would you prefer? also, please reply to the brief questions below.

• Would you be interested in an idea of this nature?
• If so, which option below seems most feasible to you?
  • Create a new page/talk page at the existing WikiProject Council, where members of various WikiProject can gather to offer updates, information and ideas on the latest efforts at each of their own WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Town Hall.
  • Create an entirely new WikiProject with an inclusive name such as
    • Wikipedia:WIkiProject Town Hall,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Bulletin Board,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Water Cooler
  • Create a new collaborative page or forum, but not as a new WIkiProject, i.e. with some name like
    • Wikipedia:Town Hall or
    • Wikipedia:Water Cooler
  • Create a new sub-page in my own userspace, such as User:Sm8900/Town Hall
  • Create a subpage at an umbrella-type WikiProject that already covers a broad topical area, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Town Hall

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your adding of archive links where they are not needed adds lots of bloat and endangers the status of articles because they can be considered too large. It also makes them harder to edit. Please set the bot to only do this to deadlinks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bullrangifer. I am not sure what you mean by "bloat", but the only "danger" to an article is if it becomes too big, and this is measured by "readable prose size" per WP:LENGTH. Adding, or removing, archive links does not effect this either way: eg, John Bolton was 54kB after I had archived the links - in the middle of the "May need to be divided" range - and after you reverted it was, of course, still 54kB.

Archiving the web links of an article saves a copy of cited web pages as a prophylactic against link rot, more details here. I tend to do it with, among others, the "more serious" articles I come across as a part of my Wikignoming. When the links to, eg John Bolton, start to rot, which, eventually, they will, and "link permanently dead" tags start appearing, it may well be too late to recover them if they were not archived while in good health.

I do quite a bit of this sort of archiving, and if you were to look at my thanks log you would see that a lot of editors appreciate it.

Happy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...do you really mean that adding links to existing content at the Internet Archive somehow "creates" a link there? How does that work?

BTW, I get "thanks" from editors after I remove the additions of unnecessary archive links. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer, I am not technical, so rather than my understanding, note that it says here "each URL is saved along with details with, and archive snapshots, either queried from the Wayback Machine, or collected elsewhere on Wikipedia." I dunno how it does it: black magic; herding the electrons with very small cowboys; quantum?

Sounds like that mythical beast, the average editor, doesn't know what they want. I guess we knew that. I do occasionally get reverted, from 5,273 over the past year or so; I just let it lie. (5,000+ IABot edits! Golly gosh, I need to get out more.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not super technical either, so don't feel bad. I'm trying to learn this. I don't use the bot, and what I know is from talking to editors who do use it.

I don't think the bot actually "archives" anything, but the words you quote indicate that it saves the results of its own use in its own database of links. That way it won't search elsewhere for those links again. It searches the Internet Archive and other databases for archived pages of the links in the Wikipedia article. If they don't exist, it does nothing. It doesn't enter any links into the database at the Internet Archive. That can be done manually by anyone. I do that occasionally when I am searching the Internet Archive and find it doesn't have any saved links for the website I'm looking at. It actually offers me the option to then save the link.

If you don't force the bot to only "fix dead links", it will replace as many links here as it can find out there, including for links here that are not dead, and that's what I have reverted. Notice the wording here:

"You can use this bot yourself by browsing the history of any page, and clicking on the "Fix dead links" link in the "External tools" section at the top of the page."

My understanding is that the bot should be used to "Fix dead links", so make sure you use the bot's setting to do just that, and only that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, how do I download/install the bot so I can use it? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about this, but due to scheduling conflicts I think the earliest I'm gonna have any appreciable amount of time to work on it won't be until March. January and February have been rather challenging for me from a time management perspective, so much so that I haven't really had a chance to get enough sleep between jobs and hospital visits and jury duty. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, it sounds as if you are having a rough time of things. No worries from my end - obviously real life comes first. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of the Aegates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hull (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Drepana 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) 20:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of Drepana 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 Drepana for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of Drepana you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Drepana for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gog the Mild,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

	Heartfelt thanks
	... for your considerable help to make Tourette syndrome the best it can be. Happy Valentine's Day to you and yours! Sandy (Talk) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just starting to go through this prior to an A-class nomination, but I've got stuck at the first sentence, "The first Siege of Hull was the first major action of the First English Civil War." The repetition of "first" is winding me up, but each seems important and irreplaceable to me, having written those words. I wonder if without a set of new eyes, you could suggest any alternatives? Harrias ^talk 18:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Replace with dates? Work in more explanation? A bit of both? Eg 'The 1642 Siege of Hull marked a major escalation in the level of conflict during the early period of the First English Civil War.'? 'The 1642 Siege of Hull marked a major escalation in the conflict between Charles I and his Parliamentarian opponents during the early period of the First English Civil War.'? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS Good luck with the second sentence. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy enough with the second sentence, but the third... boy. Do you ever re-read stuff you've written and just wonder what you were thinking? Harrias ^talk 19:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. It usually means that I have been channeling a 14th-century chronicler. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, I'm just rubbish at writing leads. But yes, also 17th-century, not-at-all-biased writers... Harrias ^talk 20:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of asking an obvious question: I am assuming that you leave the lead writing until last, after the main article is finished? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was a great idea you had to suggest to the Promoters that the DYK be run on March 4 (anniversary of the event). It is in the special holding area now to be run on that date. If it is in the #1 slot position with the picture I suspect it will get a lot of views. I plan on making that a Good Article in the future and have submitted it to the Guild of Copy Editors to look over before I do the nomination for GA.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Coldwell: All part of the service. Thanks for letting me know, made my evening. I do GoCE requests: I'll pick it up myself if it is still open once I have finished the 10,000+ word monster I am currently doing (Crusades). If I don't, ping me when you nominate and I'll assess it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently nominated Raymond W. Bliss and William Morrison (chemist) as Good Article nominees. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Coldwell, I'll do Bliss; you're on your own with Morrison. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Thanks.... --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Coldwell, if you find yourself with time on your hands, feel free to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Drepana/archive1 Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

Hello Gog:
It’s been a month, now, and there’s no sign of any movement on this, so I’ve gone with Plan B and fixed it, per the guidelines I quoted. There's an explanation on the talk page. If any of the FAC reviewers feel I have acted precipitately, I’m open to challenge, but a flat-out IDONTLIKEIT isn’t going to cut it any more. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Drepana, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Battle of Drepana was ill-fated for the Romans because their sacred chickens refused to eat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Drepana. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Drepana), 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.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 03:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 00:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

_Where_ are the Aegates Islands? Shenme (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 6,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE February 2020 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I've recently nominated an article about a type of home garden as an FA; this is my first attempt to do so. I've noticed that you're among the recently frequent reviewers of FA noms, so I wonder if it's okay to ask you to review it. If you can and have spare time, a review would be appreciated. Thank you! Dhio-270599 07:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
• Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
• Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
• Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
• CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D, Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. 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 at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed your opinion piece in the Signpost greatly, and it made me reflect further on the huge activation energy it now takes to get involved in Wikipedia. Thanks for sharing. Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 22:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kevin, appreciated. Yeah, the barriers to entry only ever seem to ratchet one way. (The original director's cut, before being slightly slimmed for The Signpost, is here, just in case you are interested.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Gog! Thanks for your help with my forays into MilHist territory; I dearly wish we had half so good a community going at any of the other projects I've worked in here. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Razing of Friesoythe article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 14, 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/April 14, 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.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to let you know when this went to FAC. I didn't expect it to take me 14 months, but here I am! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Hi Harry, sometimes that's the way of things. I have put down a marker, will flag up some trivia, and get a proper review done over the next couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gog the Mild. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bath School disaster/archive1.
Message added 15:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just wanted to let you know I put Bath School disaster up for FAC. Thank you for all your help. Shearonink (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink: thanks. As I have contributed quite a bit up to this point the degree to which I can overtly support the nomination is limited. But I have put the FAC on my watch list and will chip in on areas where I think that I can be helpful. You did right to flag up the extended discussion on the article's talk page and you can expect the coordinators to take that into account when the time comes. Good luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that might be the case but I also wanted you to know that it had been submitted to FAC. Thanks for all your help. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I request a second copy edit from the GOCE after an article has been expanded and changed considerably from when I received a first copy edit from User:A21sauce? The article I have in mind is William Morrison (chemist). I did a lot of additional copy editing and updating getting it prepared for a GAN in the near future.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Coldwell: Hi Doug, I'm not sure why you are asking me, but FWIW I don't foresee a problem. Put it on GoCE's request page with the same explanation as above and someone - possibly me - should pick it up for you. Copying Reidgreg in as a GoCE coordinator. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I knew you would give me a good answer. I'll explain above as reasoning for second request.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's only been a month since its last GOCE copy edit, there has been substantial work done and you are going for GAN. It's also welcome as we're a little short on requests at the moment. So no problem with listing it at WP:GOCER again (which I see you've done). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article First 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) 02:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked-over the refs for the FAC of Barren Island, Brooklyn. If you have any time would you mind doing a spot-check of the refs? Everything seems fine - I think I checked all of them but refs to the FA degree aren't necessarily one of my specialities & I'd appreciate if you could maybe just do a spot-check. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink, I am about to go to bed, and am busy tomorrow, but should be able to get something sorted on Tuesday. If I don't, feel free to nag me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's to getting something sorted on Tuesday! Yay! Shearonink (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's Tuuuuuuuuuesday. And I'm not nagging, I'm just excited. Yeah. Shearonink (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy hot fudge Tuesdae. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have any time today to maybe do a reference spot-check or whatever? Thx, Shearonink (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shearonink. Are we talking about a spot check of the references of Barren Island, Brooklyn? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I am trying my best to at least help out a little at FAC. Looked around for an article that hadn't gotten any comments & found Barren Island, Brooklyn - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barren Island, Brooklyn/archive1. I just wanted another set of eyes to check my work so to speak. FAC is a new venture for me, I want to make sure I'm doing things right. Shearonink (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shearonink: Yep. I've done that and signed off on it. So far as I can see, you can now pass the source review.

It is good of you both to want to help out and to want to stretch your skill set. Too many people tend to stay in just those areas of Wikipedia where they are comfortable. (Which I am all for much of the time, but I like a bit of a challenge.) Shout if you hit any problems that Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC doesn't answer, or if you would like a second opinion.

In case they help, some FAC source reviews by me are at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Defile/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Clifford, 10th Baron Clifford/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horologium (constellation)/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inter-Allied Women's Conference/archive1. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that :). Shearonink (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm not seeing your ref sign-off/spot-check for Barren Island, Brooklyn at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barren Island, Brooklyn/archive1... Shearonink (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, you did pass it. Not enough coffee in the world today. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to The Signpost in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-03-01/Opinion. ↠Pine (✉) 04:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article First 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:First Punic War for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article First Punic War you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:First Punic War for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at pl:Obrona Helu it does exactly what you want. But I don't think our template has this functionality. Something to bring to milhist general talk? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

Hi, are Naravas and Navaras (Numidian) the same? Just noticed. --Hanberke (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, Mathos or Matho (Numidian)?--Hanberke (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hanberke, they are. Many thanks. I got weird redirects. That saves me a lot of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusader states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2019. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2020, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election results: There was little changeover in the roster of Guild Coordinators, with Miniapolis stepping down with distinction as a coordinator emeritus while Jonesey95 returned as lead coordinator. The next election is scheduled for June 2020 and all Wikipedians in good standing may participate. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work, completing 215 copy edits including 56 articles from the Requests page and 116 backlog articles from the target months of June to August 2019. At the conclusion of the drive there was a record low of 323 articles in the copy editing backlog. Of the 27 editors who signed up for the drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. February Blitz: Of the 15 editors who signed up for this one-week blitz, 13 completed at least one copy edit. A total of 32 articles were copy edited, evenly split between the twin goals of requests and the oldest articles from the copy-editing backlog. Full results are here. March Drive: Currently underway, this event is targeting requests and backlog articles from September to November 2019. As of 18 March, the backlog stands at a record low of 253 articles and is expected to drop further as the drive progresses. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Help set a new record and sign up now! Progress report: As of 18 March, GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests in 2020 and there was a net reduction of 385 articles from the copy-editing backlog – a 60% decrease from the beginning of the year. Well done and thank you everyone! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. 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. 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, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Lipari Islands 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) 22:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you need the pdfs of Walbank's Commentary on Polybius? The Cambridge Ancient History for the first part of the Roman Republic is downloadable here. T8612 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612, woo hoo. I didn't know that, even though I use Academia all the time. Thank you. Saved and squirreled away. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have the first tome of Walbank's Commentary on Polybius here. Regarding the Treaty of Lutatius, I wrote something here, which should be in the text. It comes from a theory by Adam Ziolkowski (his book here). I can add it to the article if you want. T8612 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612, I think that we may be getting a bit tangential, so I would rather leave it as it is. However, there is probably a separate article in this, just on this issue- Sacred chickens and the Battle of Drepana. Would you fancy collaborating on it? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's preferable to add a section in the article on Publius Claudius Pulcher, because this is not the only controversial thing he did (see the story of his freedman Glicia). I've been considering writing an article on the Black legend of the Claudii or something similar, but I never had the time to do it. T8612 (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, are you sure abbout the language "Latin" in the infobox of Treaty of Lutatius? I would have thought they used Greek as both parties used the language. Both sources on the treaty (Polybius and Zonaras) used Greek too, but I don't think the language was stated anywhere. T8612 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have a source which gives Latin, but I find your logic compelling. I don't mention it in the text either, so it shouldn't really be there. Good catch. Removed. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of the Lipari Islands 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 Lipari Islands for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of the Lipari Islands you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Lipari Islands for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message for ya a few hours ago. Ominae (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Ominae (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does one make {{CongBio|M000797}} render as an inline ref? See Patsy Mink and why would anyone "program" (not sure if that is even the right word) a template to render something like this as an external link rather than a ref? Perhaps as it is a US template, you don't know, but you have far more technical skill than me. Maybe Vanamonde93 who does lots of political articles knows if you do not. Trying to get this one up to GA so we can do FA for Asian-Pacific American month in May. Thus, any help would be fabulous. SusunW (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to display fine to me, SusunW; what am I missing? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an inline ref, I would treat it like any other web site used as a cite. Would you like me to have a go? Where would you like it? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 and Gog the Mild:, I see "United States Congress & M000797. sfn error: no target: CITEREFUnited_States_CongressM000797 (help)" I have no idea how to fix it so yes Gog, because the help page is Greek to me. SusunW (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. I think I can fix that, yes. GIve me a minute. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias mi amigos. I really appreciate the help. SusunW (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. I managed to do it, but had to dispose of the Congbio template, which I think is the source of the trouble. I've formatted it like a regular web citation, which ought to be fine. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which I am quite happy about, Vanamonde93. I didn't like that it rendered as an external source to begin with. will have to remember to just format like any other web cite if I run across other articles using that template. Thank you so much! SusunW (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, Vanamonde93, and Girth Summit: I have been holding off nominating Mink for GA because I had so many reviews pending. Now that the drive has whittled those down, and I have 3 that should pass this week, I have nominated Mink. The issue is that we need it approved ASAP. (Okay, there is also an issue with images, which is clearly spelled out on the talk page). Though I feel bad about bumping others that have waited longer for review, Asian-Pacific American month is in May and that would be an ideal time for her to appear on the front page. Would one of y'all be willing to do the review? Thanks very much for your consideration. SusunW (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm incredibly busy in RL for another few days; if no one has picked it up by then, I'd be willing. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias! Appreciate the consideration. Stay safe, all of you. SusunW (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SusunW. I should be able to do another of your GANs over the weekend. Mink isn't the one I would have chosen, but if it is still urgent and still unspoken for I could do it. Let me know? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are wonderful Gog the Mild! It's still not been picked up and yes, I still need it done ASAP. Thank you so much. SusunW (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 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 Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, I hope you're keeping well as this coronavirus sweeps the world. If you're up for doing any GA reviews please let me know. best regards Mztourist (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mztourist, sure. So long as there is no time pressure I will pick some up, one at a time. What have you got? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog, no time pressure at all. I just nominated Operation Starlite if you could pick that up. thanks Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article 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:Mercenary War for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mercenary War you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mercenary War for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April–May 2020 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 April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive starts on April 1, and will continue until the end of May.

Harrias ^talk 06:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Bagradas River (255 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Adys 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) 14:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, thanks for doing all the heavy lifting with the drive. Could you pen something for the April Bugle about the results, number of articles tagged, GANs done etc as well as the winners? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, a draft is at the bottom of User:Gog the Mild/sandbox for you to review. There is my score left to check, me to barnstar, and the three cups to award. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spiel looks good, I'll sort out the rest later today. But given you ran it, it is probably appropriate that you hand out the other two cups. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of Adys you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Adys for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 39 reviews between January and March 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For scoring 2,573 points in the WikiProject Military history 2020 edit-a-thon March Madness, I am pleased to award you this token of appreciation from the Project. Thank you, and well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Silver Wiki
		For scoring your outstanding effort in coming second in the WikiProject Military history 2020 edit-a-thon March Madness, I am pleased to award you this Silver Wiki as a token of appreciation from the Project. Thank you, and well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For you many contributions to military history articles, to the Wikproject Military History and to coming in second in the 2020 March Madness backlog reduction edit-a-thon, I award you this barnstar. Donner60 (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Razing of Friesoythe, saying: "In mid-April 1945 in NW Europe, the 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division burnt down the small German town of Friesoythe on the orders of the divisional commander. A minor war crime in a conflict thick with them. Surprisingly (to me) it seems to have hidden in plain sight for 75 years. There has been little attempt to cover it up, bar some fudging in the official history, but this article is the only specific treatment of it of which I am aware."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		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 March 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another for the collection! Thanks for helping to reduce the copy-editing backlog by 75% in one month! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems there is a duplicate in First Punic War: ...hard-fought battle of the Battle.... Hanberke (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hanberke, fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

I'm very pleased to see that this is today's TFA - it really is a very good article, and a reminder that the "good war" was actually pretty ugly. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, and I can't thank you enough for digging out Biddiscombe - I would never have thought of looking there for information tying in the underlying behaviours. Are you the reader who currently has him out of the Open Library? Yeah - no such thing as a "good war"; as every generation seems to need to relearn. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from my talk page, Ian Rose might be the person with the book out :) I consulted a hard copy at a university library. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just wanted to check things before I reverted something that Nick beat me to anyway -- you can have it back now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just updating {{Fallacies}} on various pages due to the merge of several templates into it, and I noticed that User:Gog the Mild/Guidance and Wikipedia:Guidance appear to be a content fork. What's going on there? Biogeographist (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biogeographist, I have no idea. I am but a simple content creator, and such things are beyond me. As User:Gog the Mild/Guidance was created when I was only very sluggish active, I assume that I fouled something up. Possibly I intended to cut and paste part of Wikipedia:Guidance to a user page and I got it wrong? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you wouldn't mind if I nominate Wikipedia:Guidance for deletion then, since you have an updated version of the same thing at User:Gog the Mild/Guidance? Biogeographist (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeographist, absolutely not. I note that I am down as the page creator, but I am pretty certain that I am not. Any hoo, feel free to tidy it away. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of the Aegates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanno (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outremer, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE April 2020 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Treaty of Lutatius 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 Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gisco (died 239 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Lipari Islands, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the initial naval battle of the First Punic War, the Roman sailors fled, with their commander and the entire fleet captured by the Carthaginians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Lipari Islands. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of the Lipari Islands), 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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 12:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Treaty of Lutatius you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Treaty of Lutatius for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Treaty of Lutatius at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Panormus 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) 00:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Roman army in Africa was wiped out by a Carthaginian attack led by an elephant charge in 255 BC? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mercenary War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanno (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of Panormus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Panormus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, saw you are active in ancient/medieval war articles. Any advice how to name an article about a war that's not known by any specific name? Specifically, in the history of the Emirate of Granada there were a lot of wars which involve multiple states on each side (so they can't be just A-B war), and with multiple geographic areas (so it can't just be War in [Someplace]). For example, the war described in the early part of Nasr_of_Granada#Reign involves Granada vs an alliance of the Marinids, Castile, Aragon, and locations include Ceuta in North Africa as well as several towns on the Spanish coast. Any idea? HaEr48 (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HaEr48, I am not sure that I am the best person to ask, as I don't much care what articles are called. I once had an article name changed twice while I was taking it through FAC without getting involved. For the example you give, how about Granadian War of 1309? For all against all wars maybe Iberian War of XXX-XXX? It seems to me that a combination of a location and a date ought to uniquely identify a war reasonably succinctly. If anyone has a better idea, let them move the page. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @HaEr48: Second woot The Gog says. The trick with page titles, and the easiest way of conforming to the guides, is to establish the lowest common denominator, e.g. place/date. ——SN54129 17:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mercenary War, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Mercenary War, Carthaginian rebels killed 700 prisoners by cutting off their hands, castrating them, breaking their legs, and throwing them into a pit to be buried alive? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mercenary War. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mercenary 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For the joy of seeing an article on an ancient Roman subject (Mercenary War) that doesn't rely on primary sources. Thank you. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: A barnstar from a FAC coordinator! For a FAC in progress!! My cup runneth over. Thank you.

Yeah. Someone had fun with their copy of Polybius, back in the day. If Mercenary War were to be promoted it would be my fourth FA on a First Punic War topic. (Speaking loosely.) And not a primary source between them. I am hoping that there will be another half dozen to come, including First Punic War itself. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Panormus at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gisco (died 239 BC) 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:Gisco (died 239 BC) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

• New partnership
• Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Gog the Mild,

Having not been through the FA process before, I was wondering if perhaps you might be willing to mentor me through it for the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter. I think the article is in pretty reasonable shape, but I would welcome your feedback and advice. Thank you! CThomas³ (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cthomas3, sure, I'm willing to give it a go. I am a little busy at the moment - I have two FACs on the go, among other things - but should be able to allocate some time to this. I note that there is a FAC nom on the talk page all set to go. Do you really think nomination is that imminent?

I would normally suggest that I trawl through the article - probably in stages, probably over several days - copy editing fairly freely as I go (you can always revert anything you don't like) and throwing out queries as if I were a FAC reviewer. Is this OK with you? I would then give an opinion on how FAC-ready I thought it was. And whether I thought it should go through A class review first. I would normally strongly recommend this, but I haven't read the article yet.

Note that I know next to nothing about the topic - my knowledge of fighter technology gives out around when Spitfires were equipped with variable speed propellers.

Let me know if I have your permission to start into it.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Gog, I put that notice up prior to posting here; it was the fist step in the nomination process, but I thought it might be best for a mentor instead, so I didn't complete the application. I'm certainly happy for the notice to be taken down if there's work to be done first. Of course you are welcome to either make changes yourself or have me do them; I'm perfectly okay with any way you would like to do this. And an A-class review would be welcome! I'm not in any hurry, so I'd prefer to do this the right way. Thank you! CThomas³ (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Adys, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the Battle of Adys, the peace terms offered to the defeated Carthaginians were so harsh that they decided to fight on? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Adys. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Adys), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gisco (died 239 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gisco (died 239 BC) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 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:

• Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
• Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
• The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
• Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
• Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also 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. 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. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Cape Hermaeum 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) 18:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Romans besieged Lilybaeum for nine years without capturing the Carthaginian city? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC)), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your FAC comments on the Hyborian War article here, but the more I think about them more I think the article would benefit from including all of them.

I'm open to withdrawing the nomination and reworking as recommended if you're open to reviewing it before I repost. I'm on no schedule, so the timeline would be up to you.

Alternatively, since it would likely take me less than a week to rewrite as you note, I can rework while the nomination is open (I'm already underway). I'd defer to your knowledge there as I'm not familiar with nomination timelines. Airborne84 (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]