User talk:Gog the Mild#Talk:Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC)/GA1

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Siege of Utica (204 BC)/GA1{{!}}begun reviewing the article Siege of Utica (204 BC) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. File:Time2wait.svg 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)

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = 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, [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2025-02-09&end=2025-03-01&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Siege_of_Hennebont_(1342) 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)

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)

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = 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, [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2025-02-12&end=2025-03-04&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Edward_III%27s_Breton_campaign 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)

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)

: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)

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

The article Siege of Utica (204 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; 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)

{{ivmbox

|image = Cscr-featured.svg

|imagesize=60px

|extracss=font-size:1.25em; font-family:Georgia;

|text = 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.{{parabr}}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, {{user0|FrB.TG}} via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

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)

: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)

:: 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)

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:

• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|Gog the Mild}} 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.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|Generalissima}} with 1,095 round points, mainly from 2 FAs, 2 featured lists, 8 GAs, and 16 Did You Know articles mainly on historical topics.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|BeanieFan11}}, with 866 round points from 20 GAs, 23 DYKs, and 2 In the News articles primarily about athletes.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|Sammi Brie}}, with 846 round points from 16 GAs about radio and TV stations, 45 GA reviews, and 3 DYKs.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|Hey man im josh}}, 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.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|MaranoFan}}, 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)

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

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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

::::Thanks {{u|Donner60}} for the swift, clear and well-reasoned response. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Second Treaty of London/GA1{{!}}begun reviewing the article Second Treaty of London you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. File:Time2wait.svg 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)

The article Second Treaty of London you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; 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)

:@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)

::Hi {{u|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)

|}

{{ivmbox

|image = Cscr-featured.svg

|imagesize=60px

|extracss=font-size:1.25em; font-family:Georgia;

|text = 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.{{parabr}}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, {{user0|Ian Rose}} via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = 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, [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2025-03-07&end=2025-03-27&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Siege_of_Utica 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)

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

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = 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, [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2025-03-10&end=2025-03-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=First_Treaty_of_London 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)

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = 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, [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2025-03-11&end=2025-03-31&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Second_Treaty_of_London 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)

|}

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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

::::Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe. Inspired by this I have just picked up a copy of Bruce Hoskins' book on the siege of San Sebastian, which isn't used at all in the article. (Which is dire.) What I am short of is works and detailed knowledge covering the Peninsula context and siege background. I have some, but not sufficient for FAC. Are these two areas where you may be able to cover my deficit? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Do you mean Bruce Collins? I own a copy of his 2017 Wellington and the Siege of San Sebastian. I've a couple of general Peninsular War studies (Esdaile, Gates) which would probably fill in some gaps. I also have Glover's Wellington As Military Commander which donates several pages to the siege. I could have sworn there was a recently published biography of the chief engineer at San Sebastian, Sir Richard Fletcher, but I can only find that of his underling John Fox Burgoyne. Mark S. Thompson has a recent book which covers the war from the engineering perspective though. I also have the Graham biography currently listed in further reading, but wouldn't trust many of the other sources listed there! I haven't used Myatt's British Sieges of the Peninsular War, but assume it could prove useful. Let me know if any of that would be helpful; happy to chip in wherever. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, that work by Prof Collins (from my old college!) which I think could - and should - be the spine of any article. Plus Haythornethwaite's Napoleonic Source Book and Armies of Wellington and a slightly dubious Wellington at War in the Peninsula by Robertson. Plus whatever there is on the net. It seems that we may have a collaboration! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Would be happy to. Let me know when you're starting to look at it - I might chip away here and there in the meantime. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Truce of Malestroit/GA1{{!}}begun reviewing the article Truce of Malestroit you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. File:Time2wait.svg 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)

:Gog, I’ve noticed that the reviewer for the aforementioned article's GAN has been inactive on Wikipedia for the past three weeks. Feel free to reach out if you need any assistance. Kind regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi MSincccc and thanks for the message. Harrias is tough but fair as a reviewer - and enjoys taking the mickey out of me. And they had agreed to review at "pre-FAC" level, as FAC is where the article is headed. Having had my hands full with other articles and responsibilities I had been letting it ride. But given the length of Harrias's Wikibreak I thing something needs doing. Are you suggesting that you would be willing to pick up the review where they have left off? If so, I would be extremely grateful. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I can. I’ll be try to leave comments when I find the time.

::: By the way, I believe I’ve already given you a full review of the article on The Punic Wars. It was quite a long read. Best regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you, that would be great, and there is no rush.

::::You have, and it is much appreciated. I thought 7,400 words wasn't too bad given the topic, but agree that it is a bit much to tackle in one go. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hi MSincccc. Harrias has just contacted me off-Wiki. They have been ill, but are now back and will be picking up the review. So very many thanks from me for spotting the gap and so kindly offering to take on the rest of the review, but it looks as if you can stand down. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for letting me know, Gog. I’m looking forward to commenting on the article’s FAC. Kind regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox

|image = Cscr-featured.svg

|imagesize=60px

|extracss=font-size:1.25em; font-family:Georgia;

|text = 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.{{parabr}}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, {{user0|Ian Rose}} via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

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)

: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)

:: 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)

{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Seven}}

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)

Thank you today for Initial campaign of the Breton Civil War, introduced: "In the beginning there was a happy little dukedom. Then the wise old duke died. And for 24 years afterwards everything went very badly indeed."! - My story today is about defiance against a war, sadly matching, - good music (see my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

{{-}}

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = On 9 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Truce of Malestroit, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1343 the French and English armies marched to within 18 miles (29 km) of each other, then agreed a three-and-a-half year truce? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Truce of Malestroit. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2025-03-30&end=2025-04-19&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Truce_of_Malestroit Truce of Malestroit]), 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) 00:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constans_II_(son_of_Constantine_III)&diff=prev&oldid=1284659090 this edit] to Constans II (son of Constantine III) you use {{sfn|Kulikowski|2021|p=139}}. Unfortunately there is no such work" "Kulikowski 2021" listed. There is a "Kulikowski 2000", but the page number is impossible. As it is nobody can look the reference up, and the article is added to :Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. DuncanHill (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks DuncanHill. I had thought that I had already added Kulikowski 2021 to the Sources, but clearly got confused by his 2000 work. I appreciate your picking it up. Now fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. I'm not following you around (I'm working through :Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, but there's a "Wagner 2005" in Henry of Grosmont, Duke of Lancaster which is one of yours too! DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::A likely tale. Help! I'm being stalked. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gog, hope all is well. Something you said a few years ago about the Scottish Highlands has stuck with me, and I finally made it to the area, spending a few days walking the second half of the west highland way with my (now retirement age) father. The weather cooperated, and it was truly a great experience- really quite beautiful scenery. so, thanks for the recommendation even if it was only an implicit one :). Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|Eddie891}}, that sounds great. I am pleased to hear that I inspired you, albeit unknowingly. And the run of good weather has been very unScottish. I got up myself for a couple of days in very late February. The Scottish Highlands have to be experienced to be appreciated, and the WHW is a grand introduction. My next suggestion is to check out the Munros and consider getting up a couple. The ones to the east of Bridge of Orchy spring to mind, but with 282 there are plenty to choose from. (Ben Lomond?) And many thanks for letting me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

|}

Wishing you peace, joy, and renewal this Easter season.

Thank you for all you do to keep Wikipedia growing and thriving.

Stay well, and happy editing! MSincccc (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox

|image = Cscr-featured.svg

|imagesize=60px

|extracss=font-size:1.25em; font-family:Georgia;

|text = Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Constans II (son of Constantine III), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.{{parabr}}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, {{user0|Ian Rose}} via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

Gog the Mild, you have reverted my late edit of the Third Punic War article.

Your description:

:::Reverted good faith edit per BRD to the more generally understandable language which reached consensus at FAC.

My question:

::BRD and FAC mean what?

:::WP:BRD and WP:FAC; in the case of the latter specifically Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Third Punic War/archive1. Note that prior to Third Punic War's FAC the same form of words had been agreed at ten other FACs and has since been agreed in a further nine; this is an unusually strong case of WP:CONSENSUS. The same wording features in a current FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Punic Wars/archive2 (as footnote 1) - please feel free to input to the ongoing discussion there.

::::Thank you, for such a prompt response. I followed your clues and found that BRD refers to the principle Be bold, revert, and discuss, and FAC means Featured Article Candidate. If my proposal is an analogue of a proposal already rejected, then I have no further stylistic argument.

My word:

::I can prove that my edit is better.

:::I respectfully doubt that this sort of thing is susceptible to objective qualatitive ranking.

::::Broken English constructions, and departures from Wikipedia's Manual of Style are not subjective.

::::Please consider the sentence

:::::The Carthaginians were referred to by the Romans by the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus) and is a reference to Carthage's Phoenician origin.

::::What is it, exactly, that is a reference to Carthage's Phoenician origin? My edit was an attempt to resolve this mystery, and you revert my edit. I saw your endorsement of George Orwell's writing tips, and you stand by this passive construction, with its clumsily extended agent of means?

If you please:

:1. Point me toward the record of the procedure that decided to revert my edit.

:::See the "R" section of WP:BRD. I believe that WP:FAOWN is also relevant.

::::George Orwell has clear advice about the use of obscure acronyms—advice which you flout. Do you praise to mock?

:2. Point me toward where I may appeal that decision.

:::You are doing so - although it may go more smoothly if you were to cut and paste this discussion to the talk page of the article - I am taking this to be the "D" part of BRD.

::::The heart of this dialog shall I paste thither. I appreciate your participation in this D of your R of my overly B edit. Well met, and fare thee well. That is, WM and FTW.

You are an extraordinarily accomplished and highly respected editor. And I thank you.

:::I am not, but thank you for the kind words.

I shall remain your most humble servant.—catsmoke ^talk 09:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::There has been a misunderstanding, and I apologize for my part. You and I were considering different things: You had in mind A and I had in mind B. My edit was to correct B and your revision was made for the sake of A. I interpreted your revision as having been made on the basis of B and that is why it did not make sense. I apologize. I have now learned to pay closer attention to the records of the consideration of the details of featured articles. I appreciate your humoring of my snarkiness.—catsmoke ^talk 11:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::No problem. (And thank you.) At the risk of upsetting the shade of George Orwell, WP:AGF is one of Wikipedia's better suggestions.

::::::Back to business. Would The Carthaginians were referred to by the Romans by the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus) and is a reference to Carthage's Phoenician origin. be improved by 'The Carthaginians were referred to by the Romans by the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), which is a reference to Carthage's Phoenician origin.' ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

What is the basis of your username? It seems to allude to the ancient legend of Gog. Yet I'm uneasy about that idea, as your meaning is probably something different? Thank you, for sharing, if you do so choose.—catsmoke ^talk 08:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|Catsmoke}}. Many, many years ago I needed to pick a character name for a role-playing game. Gog was short, memorable and both vaguely menacing and mildly humorous. I didn't realise at the time that the word cropped up in what some people consider a holy book. It seemed to be a lucky name so I stuck with it in various contexts. How "the Mild" got added is an equally inconsequentially story. I imagine that putting the name into a search engine will throw up several non-Wikipedia usages, all mine. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'll leave your presence on the Internet-at-large unexamined, as that is your affair. Any online search for "Catsmoke" will find information that may be similar to what one might find regarding yourself: My participation in online games, my posts on forums, and so forth.

::You seem to be a scholar of ancient history. Such is a good, noble, and important pursuit. Some of my best friends are historians, and I am on the editorial board of the Journal of our local Fort Smith Historical Society (Fort Smith, Arkansas, USA—a dismal town of utter banality), but I've not been a dedicated student of history. I studied Latin for many years, and I have a deep respect for Classicists. May we speak again soon. I wish you the very best, now and always.—catsmoke ^talk 11:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Regarding "holy books"—yes, Gog is a character found in both the Bible and the Quran. In the Bible, the character is portrayed inconsistently, being one thing to one writer, and something different to the next. None of it makes any good sense. The literary quality of the Quran—or, might one say, the absolute lack thereof?—speaks for itself.—catsmoke ^talk 11:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: {{tps}} {{u|Catsmoke}} - I wrote a featured article about an event in the Fort Smith area a couple years ago - Van Buren raid. I actually had a pretty nice trip down to Fort Smith in I think 2022. Hog Farm _Talk 18:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I was just wondering, did you see my query regarding the titles of the archives for the Greensburg tornado FACs? Noah, BSBA^Talk 19:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|BeanieFan11}} with 1,233 round points from 24 good articles, 28 Did you know articles, and one In the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|Thebiguglyalien}} with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplier featured articles on Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) and Grace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|History6042}} with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|Gog the Mild}} with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|Arconning}} with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews

In addition, we would like to recognize {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16|Generalissima}} for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. 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) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I have a complaint about the FA system. If I sound a little bitter, please just allow it after the experience I had. For an FA, once you get an oppose, if you argue against it, you can't really win because you're being argumentative and that pisses off reviewers, and then you're screwed. But if you accept it and do nothing, you're screwed anyway. Those votes are simply accepted, as though they are all equally of value - which is a ridiculous assumption if you think about it. Votes are - quite often - based on feelings. Some attempt to be objective, but you have to admit not everyone is. When that happens, it should be possible to challenge a vote without prejudice. Everyone acknowledges the graduate peer review system is broken - because it has no process of challenge or appeal - so why can't WP recognize it has the same problem? Personal feelings can and do get in the way. A system that turns a blind eye to that can legitimately be described as broken.

We all know that the majority of Wikipedia editors are college educated, twenty-something, male, atheists. Every now and again I run into one with a need to RGW regarding Christianity. Usually, I weather that just fine, though sometimes I have to appeal to some form of arbitration, but at FAC, I had no way to do that. I tried to do what you said. I showed that I followed the sources with the sources I used - and then with the sources they used - and then with additional sources. VeridianPenguin demonstrated it. UC didn't care. I don't think they ever checked any of what I said. They just went cherry picking. The long discussion left me hanging with no resolution possible. The idea that I left the negative about Christianity out of the article was simply not true, but I had no way to prove it. I could take any number of approaches for resolution anywhere else on WP, but not at FAC. Why should it be assumed that an article of FA quality should produce no disputes? That produces the look of a "members only" approach - that only certain types of articles can be approved. The process itself seems biased. It needs revision.

You will no doubt be relieved to hear that I'm done trying to get this article what it deserves. I am giving up. Which is really sad if you think about it, not just for me but for the encyclopedia. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:I thought you were meant to bring disputes like this to dispute resolution? IAWW (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Jen's not disputing. She's having a good old moan. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: {{Smiley}} Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hi there {{u|Jenhawk777}}. Yes, this can in theory be an issue at FAC, although you may be amazed at how seldom it is an issue in practise. Coordinators can and do promote in spite of well-reasoned opposes. With great care and some trepidation. That was never going to happen in this case, for reasons I won't irritate you with. But your disagreement with UC was something different - a content dispute, but which Wikipedia has a multitude of resolution possibilities. See WP:RCD. There is no need nor expectation for us to go anywhere near those sort of issues. Yes, they can be irritating and even intractible. But their very complexity makes them unsuitable for resolution at FAC. And, to be frank, you didn't help yourself by your disinclination to "Stop digging". I have considerable sympathy. Punic Wars which I have been working towards getting through FAC for nearly six years - and got 25 sub- and sub-sub-articles through along the way (to date) - is currently up for it's second time (The only FAC I have ever renominated.) and looking as if it may fail yet again, for reasons not wildly dissimilar to your complaints and from a not wildly dissimilar direction. But c'est la Wikipedia.

:::::No, we are not relieved. If you would care to be bored with my thoughts as to haw you may be able to achieve your aim, I type too slowly for "Gog's bit-by-bit approach to getting complex articles through FAC" three-volume guide but if you wish to arrange a voice or video call I would be happy to discuss a long term strategy to get where you want to go. You may never get there - as my Punic Wars may not - but there could be more fun and accomplishment along the way (25 FAs and 12 GAs on Punic-related articles for me) than your efforts have generated to date for you. Plus: an entirely optional grammar, MoS and comprehensibility critique of the first section of HoC. Wikipedia needs energy like yours, and the balance you could bring. (I have met four or five dozen Wikipedians in the flesh, not one was under 30, but as for the rest ...) I am unsure if the better analogy is that you are using an angle grinder to cut butter, or a butter knife to cut stone; but there seems to be some sort of mismatch going on.

::::: Courtesy ping to my colleagues: {{@FAC}}. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's okay to irritate me, feel free, AirshipJungleman did it all the time - without recrimination. He would call something I wrote "meaningless babble" - one of my favorites - and I would just assume he was right and change it.

:::::::{{smiley}}

::::::::{{tpw}}I don't know what deserved that epithet, but I stand by my past self. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::AJ, now I have a headache imagining you attempting to stand by your past self. Did the mention of Heinlein bring time travel to mind? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::A time-travelling airship, that's an idea. Probably shows up in Heinlein somewhere. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Or the time you wrote "this is the biggest waste of space I've ever seen" - that one was pretty good too. I really loved that paragraph you hated too! It was colorful. Illustrative. Fun. But I learned the hard way that all that gets you is an award in the WP Hall of shame. Still, I also learned that a ride in the time traveling airship is always time well spent. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I know I got two more opposes, but I feel confident I would have dealt with those because they had specific changes they wanted, and I would have done them.

:::::::I hadn't even looked at them. I had simply read the first section of the article,

::::::Just don't tell me I am biased toward favoring Christianity. Them's fightin' words, because I am a true blue believer in the importance of neutrality and I am very, very, very careful about it. See the essay on my user page. I actually do those things.

:::::::I wouldn't dream of it. No need for the passive aggression!

:::::::: Passive aggression! That was outright aggression! But that's what caused me grief isn't it? I got mad and it all went downhill from there.

::::::It wasn't just a content dispute. It maligned everything I had done.

:::::::Tell me about it. But it's not the coordinators' role to ride to the rescue of maligned maidens. Sadly perhaps.

:::::::: Then there should be an exception for me... OK maybe that's not entirely reasonable ...

::::::Thank you for telling me about Punic Wars. Six years! I feel weak and ashamed of my lack of perseverance, though I don't really think it's ever going to be possible to get this one through. Gerda's comment is right I think: {{tqq|I think the problem with the article is that the range is extremely wide, and somehow every reviewer would like it written differently... the article pleasing all equally would be too long to be read. - reviewers will have to compromise as well.}} That will probably never happen universally. There will always be opposes.

:::::::Let me tell you about the onion approach to problems. I got it from Robert Heinlein; whose oeuvre is like the Bible in so far as there is a whole education in there.

:::::::: I look forward to it.

::::::I would still love to arrange a call and get your input. I learned so much from AirshipJungleman and can't thank him or praise him enough, and I have no doubt I could learn just as much from you. Whatever might result for this article - the fact you are willing to take this kind of time for me is humbling. You are truly gracious. I won't pass up the chance. How do we set up that call?

:::::::Send me an email with your preferred mode of contact, contact details, and time(s) and date(s) that would work for you.

:::::::: Done

::::::An angle grinder ... that sounds like me alright... I love it. You and AirshipJungleman are in cahoots aren't you? I admire and appreciate you both. Thank you.

:::::::LOL! Behave, or I'll give you my spoon talk.

:::::::: This is me behaving! Might as well get that talk ready. I will no doubt deserve it at some point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Speak soon. (Pre-call reading - WP:GOG1.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{ec}} I know I'm not the intended recipient, but that was a great read. IAWW (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Done. I think this is the third time I have read it, and it gets better every time. My experience in my first year was the opposite, but meeting people like you since has made all the difference. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Siege of Romorantin/GA1{{!}}begun reviewing the article Siege of Romorantin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. File:Time2wait.svg 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) 16:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

|}

I saw your post [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/May_2025/Review_essay here], asking if there would be a Pen and Sword review essay. I noticed that Nick-D didn't include any academic reviews of Osprey published books. Also, I thought you should be aware of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome/Archive_34#Ilkka_Syv%C3%A4nne this "discussion" covering Ilkka Syvänne's books and Pen & Sword publishing].

Take care, Gog! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks KB. I have a number of P&S books picked up over the years, mostly for light reading. They seemed to be expanding in several directions in recent years, with the same patchy quality. (When I say "quality" bear in mind that I do most of my work around FAC.) Some are by authors who seem highly qualified. Some on areas where I consider myself moderately informed seem to be talking a lot of sense. Some don't manage either of those. That conversation is interesting, especially regards the specific book. That said it was a bit of a "conversation in a bar", with Drmies standing out to me as keeping their head. That sort of conversation is one reason why I was encouraging {{u|Nick-D}} to do a summary of P&S similar to the Osprey one. Obviously a summary of academic reviews with examples would be a "nice to have", but Nick made it clear that the article was just his opinion, and there is only so much you can do in a few hundred words. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:PS re the Ilkka Syvänne thread, I have just noticed my comment in the immediately following thread on Pen and Sword Books (sic). Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::You are welcome, Gog. I did notice that Nick-D did used the same methodology I use when assessing sources; author qualifications/specialization in particular. I do believe Nick-D's comment on historiography(of older works) is very pertinent and that since Osprey is more of a print-for-profit than an academic publisher, those works will have to be assessed and possibly sidelined. I recently found a book co-author by Ilkka Syvänne;"The Military History of the Third Century Iran", Ilkka Syvänne, Katarzyna Maksymiuk, Siedlce: Scientific Publishing House of Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, 2018, but was unable to get any feedback concerning its reliability. Take care and hope you have a peaceful day. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi, I'm afraid that I'm less familiar with Pen & Sword than Osprey. In my experience of P&S, the quality of their books varies even more considerably than Osprey - the company sometimes republishes top tier works and frequently publishes new works by leading historians. It also publishes a lot of low quality books. The company's imprints such as Seaforth Publishing can be of more even quality - Seaforth books are usually quite good in my experience, for instance. I'd suggest treating P&S books on their merits. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The article Truce of Malestroit you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Truce of Malestroit for comments about the article, and Talk:Truce of Malestroit/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 Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)