Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Utica (204 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Hennebont (1342), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Joanna of Montfort became known as the "Flame of Brittany" after she led the successful defence of Hennebont against a besieging French army in 1342? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Hennebont (1342). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Siege of Hennebont (1342)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Renewal RFC phase

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, this is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Edward III's Breton campaign, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Edward III's Breton campaign ended in a truce that was "astonishingly favourable" to the English? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edward III's Breton campaign. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Edward III's Breton campaign), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally drop the disambiguator, since there's not an article to conflict with at the title and some brief searching suggests that this is a clear primary topic. As for FAC - it wouldn't be the most slam-dunk case out there, but I think it'd be doable. If you can trawl everything out of the sources, I think the key will be having a good response for distinguishing this topic from the longer Battle of Utica (203 BC) article (frame this one as the large campaign?). Hog Farm _Talk 01:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll leave it for a week or two, read through it again, and decide. My current thinking is not to, and to write a separate article on the campaign as a whole, to tie everything together. There is a surprising amount of information which hasn't ended up in any of the articles. Logistics, training, politics, some diplomacy. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dis-disambiguation done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Siege of Utica (204 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Utica (204 BC) for comments about the article, and Talk:Siege of Utica (204 BC)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Edward III's Breton campaign, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Edward III's Breton campaign. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible (but not certain) depending on how some source inquiries go, that I may send USS Romeo to FAC at some point later this year. One of the sources that would be used is the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies, a collection of various military reports, technical data, and other documents, from the time that the US Navy operated the ship. Now obviously, the hope is to rely on this primary source data as little as possible, but I don't think complete avoidance is possible without obnoxious gaps in the ship's career narrative. As an FAC coordinator - would you prefer the citation style of this work as found in USS Marmora (1862), or the one seen in the GA USS John P. Jackson or USS Varuna (1861)? The latter is more thorough, but also has the potential to become quite ugly at times, as can be seen at the John P. Jackson article. Hog Farm _Talk 01:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I am not sure that I can see a lot of difference. The latter actually looks less ugly to me. That may be my dislike of source details in the references (citations) section. As you will know from reviewing my articles I prefer to put all of that in "Sources". (The clue is in the name. :-) ) That said, as a coord I am not sure I care how it is presented, I care about the extent it stays well inside the MoS re primary sourcing. It is horribly easy to end up ORing in these situations; although if anyone can avoid that it is you. Dunno if that helps. Feel free to ask a supplementary. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The plan is to get it down to just using that to nail down a few names/dates + a few quotables of the sort that you can only find in the 19th century. Hog Farm _Talk 04:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As a reminder, we are no longer disqualifying the lowest-scoring contestants; everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned from Wikipedia. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. Unlike the round points in the main WikiCup table, which are reset at the end of each round, tournament points are carried over between rounds and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far.

Round 1 was very competitive compared with previous years; two contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 500 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,168 round points, mainly from 4 featured articles and 4 good articles on old military history, in addition to an assortment of GA and FA reviews.
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, mainly from 2 FAs, 2 featured lists, 8 GAs, and 16 Did You Know articles mainly on historical topics.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions), with 866 round points from 20 GAs, 23 DYKs, and 2 In the News articles primarily about athletes.
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with 846 round points from 16 GAs about radio and TV stations, 45 GA reviews, and 3 DYKs.
• Hey man im josh (submissions), with 816 round points from 5 FLs about sports and Olympic topics, 46 FL reviews, 3 ITN articles, and a large number of bonus points.
• MaranoFan (submissions), with 815 round points primarily from 3 FAs and 1 GA about music, in addition to 9 article reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 18 featured articles, 26 featured lists, 1 featured-topic article, 197 good articles, 38 good-topic articles and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 23 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 550 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2, which begins on 1 March. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons for placing first in the February 2025 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 38 points from 4 articles, 2 promoted to FA class and 2 promoted to GA class. Well done. Donner60 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors Annual Report Our 2024 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Introduction Membership news and election results Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page Closing words – Your Guild coordinators To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history shows that the bot assessed this article as B class on February 24. FWIW, I confirmed that on March 1 in the AutoCheck report for February. I have left the contest entry pending. Is there a basis for claiming the assessment in March that I am missing? Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donner60. No, I did the two articles First and Second Treaty of London together and clearly didn't pay enough attention to the dates. Thanks for picking it up. I'll remove it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donner60. I have a query re this article and the contest. I started work on it on 23 February 2015, When it was stub class. I self assessed it as B class on the same day, but did not claim this improvement for the contest. Today, 29 March it was promoted to FA status, which I have claimed for the contest. I would be grateful if you could suggest how many points it would be appropriate for me to claim. Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that B to FA

+20 is appropriate.

Sorry to have need to tell you about the upgrade to B by the bot on February 24. In this case I had to conclude there were too many days left in February to approve it as B for March. I have asked Hog Farm and Peacemaker for second opinions in a few cases. Hog Farm's view was the same as my conclusion in this case as to a similar case.

I usually wait a day or two to close the contest and will approved entries with borderline dates if the contestant could not have known about the end of the month assessment before the end of the month or the assessment was made by an assessor a day or two after the request. IMO, that much leeway seems reasonable. Even after confirming contest entries for nearly two years, I still see new situations or situations that are out of the ordinary and seem to need judgment calls. I am open to criticism and explanation and have changed my initial confirmation at least once.

Thanks for the great work on this article. Donner60 (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Donner60 for the swift, clear and well-reasoned response. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Second Treaty of London you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MSincccc -- MSincccc (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Second Treaty of London you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Second Treaty of London for comments about the article, and Talk:Second Treaty of London/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MSincccc -- MSincccc (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild My sincere apologies if I have lacked depth in any aspect of the review (still learning as a schoolboy). Hopefully, we will collaborate again in the future. Looking forward to the article’s nomination at FAC. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MSincccc, you may be over-analysing here. Thanks for the review, what you delivered in that GAN was pretty much what I wanted. That said, a desire to apply self scrutiny is a good thing. Hopefully Wikipedia is being a good teacher. It has certainly taught me a lot of things, many of them not things I would have anticipated. This, WP:GOG1, may or may not amuse you. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2025 (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 works on a female astronaut and a senior US Navy officer Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on his experiences with a recent featured picture Timeline: This month in military history

Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Battle of Preston (1648), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Utica, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the siege of Utica in 204 BC the Romans tied their whole fleet together prior to battle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Utica (204 BC). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Siege of Utica), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 67, January – February 2025

• East View Press and The Africa Report join the library
• Spotlight: Wikimedia+Libraries International Convention and WikiCredCon
• Tech tip: Suggest page

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --18:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article First Treaty of London, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that by the First Treaty of London England was to gain a quarter of France? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Treaty of London (1358). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, First Treaty of London), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cielquiparle (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Second Treaty of London, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1359 the French King signed a treaty which ceded almost half of France to England? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Second Treaty of London. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Second Treaty of London), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

SL93 (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Nowruz
	Dear @Gog the Mild Wishing you a happy Nowruz, filled with hope, kindness, peace and love. Hounaam (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Hi, I'm currently working on your FAC comments. Have been using Lipscombe but honestly if that's your best suggestion for a "high quality" source to replace the older ones then this article is going to be terrible. I'm using the e-book and even with the larger print Lipscombe only manages two pages on the entire Battle of Bayonne, in a book meant to be half about Bayonne! I'm very disappointed with the book so far. Not trying to separate out FAC comments to your talk; despite my ranting this is meant to be a request to see if you have any other suggestions for sources! Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that. I (only) have Lipscombe's Wellington's Eastern Front, a sound and dense book which one year I shall mine for 6 or 8 GANs or FACs. I assumed his other two would be similar. Re your FAC, personally I can just about grit my teeth over Oman, especially if he is alternated with more modern sources. But at 100+ years old I pretty much draw the line other than for (ideally very) occasional narrowly factual cites. Sadly the Peninsula War is not really my forte. I know my way around it, but not the details of modern sourcing. Google Scholar suggests The Napoleonic Wars: The Peninsular War 1807–1814 Volume 3, by Gregory Fremont-Barnes (2014). Of course, there may be good stuff in French sources. Or not. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a copy of Gates' The Spanish Ulcer tomorrow, and believe that should be able to alleviate at least some of the most egregious citations. It's frustrating that the bits missing from the modern sources are almost always those that directly mention Hinuber! For example, I've tried to replace Oman in the first paragraph of "Investment of Bayonne", but Lipscombe only says that the fighting at Anglet was difficult - he doesn't say who took part, or what was actually done.

In terms of progress so far: Fortescue is now only used to explain why there was war in India and for a brigade order of battle. Philippart has been whittled down to one use that I still intend to remove. Similarly Oman is only present for two specific facts I couldn't find in detail elsewhere. Beamish is the only remaining very old source, and I'm hoping Gates will assist with that.

Of the 49 citations you identified as at least 100 years old, 16 remain. Of those I think 6 (the Gotha family information and the Ompteda quote) aren't replaceable. Thanks for all your help so far, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't used too much of it, initial thoughts on Gates are that it is a highly readable but scholarly work, with good coverage of both the British and Spanish sides of the conflict. If you do look into some Peninsular War work, let me know if you would like any assistance; I seem to have greatly improved my library in the last few weeks! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Truce of Malestroit you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, First Treaty of London, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog. I notice you have listed Dracula for TFA next month. I was really hoping to save it for the 130th anniversary. Running it early is really disappointing to me. May I ask why it has been scheduled 2 years prematurely? This will prevent it from running in 2027, as I requested here. Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries ImaginesTigers, I'll pull it and swap in something else. Apologies for missing it at TFAP, I suspect that I didn't scroll down far enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it Gog and no worries at all—I know it's really far away. Thank you. Hope you're doing well. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Writers Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I am pleased to reward your sterling performance - 4 articles, 2 brought to FA class and 1 brought to GA class, 51 points - and second place finish in the Military History Project writing contest for March 2025 with this award of the Writers Barnstar. Well done. Congratulations, Donner60 (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 18 reviews between January and March 2025. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for outstanding contributions in not only producing quality content but also bringing it to main page attention! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]