User talk:Iazyges/Archives/2023/March
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Iazyges. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Administrators' newsletter – March 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
- Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
- A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.
Technical news
- The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.
Arbitration
- Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
- The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
- A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.
Miscellaneous
- The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
- Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
- The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a
[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing
. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
WikiCup 2023 March newsletter
So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.
The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included 
LunaEatsTuna, 
Thebiguglyalien, 
Sammi Brie, 
Trainsandotherthings, 
Lee Vilenski, 
Juxlos, 
Unexpectedlydian, 
SounderBruce, 
Kosack, 
BennyOnTheLoose and 
PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date 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 Needed.
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. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Promotion of Thekla (daughter of Theophilos)
GAR coordinator
I have just closed the poll at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, and you are now officially a GAR coordinator. Congratulations, I guess. Happy editing, —Kusma (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations from the Military History Project
|
Military history reviewers' award | |
| On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 5 reviews between October and December 2022. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
|
DYK for Harbor of Eutropius
On 11 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Harbor of Eutropius, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Byzantine emperor Maurice was executed at the Harbor of Eutropius? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Harbor of Eutropius. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Harbor of Eutropius), 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.
BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
In further appreciation
|
The Premium Reviewer Barnstar | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the vast number of thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC) |
- @Gog the Mild: Many thanks! Although I do hope you know it's all just a pretext to harass you for various Britishisms ;△) . Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's ok. We Brits are big hearted. We forgive you benighted colonials for what you do to your mother tongue. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 55
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 55, January – February 2023
- New bundle partners:
- Newspapers.com
- Fold3
- 1Lib1Ref January report
- Spotlight: EDS SmartText Searching
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
About reliable sources
Hello. You dismissed my draft because there were no reliable sources: Draft:Roman temple of Augustobriga
I made some changes but I just wanted to ask you something, since I'm kind of new in creating articles and get easily confused by things I don't understand well.
I read all about reliable sources in Wikipedia help, and I think the sources I use are probably the most reliable existing (or at least available). I really wouldn't know how to prove my information with better papers than that. But since my article is about a Spanish manument quite unknown and there's hardly anything about it in English (except for some rough mentions), I wonder if "no reliable sources" could mean "no reliable sources because I understand no Spanish so I can't check them".
I make this question because I just created another article about a historical Spanish character, using even historical original sources, and someone else rejected it for the same reason. Nevertheless, the Spanish version for both articles was approved no problem. That's why I wonder if the problem is the language or the source, because if the problem is the language then there's nothing I can do about it, reliable sources are in Spanish and not in English.
Also, most of the information comes from the same source, so I could either insert tons of references, most of the to that same source (often even to the same page), but I thought that would be clumsy and not helpful, so apart from a few references, I created the section "Main Source" and gave full detail of it, even using a link to an online version of the article hosted on an official page. I thought that could be useful for anyone wanted to expand on the article or check its sources, and at the same time avoiding pestering the reader with usless duplicated references.
But I don't trust my opinion here, since I'm not a savvy in Wikipedia and I want to learn what course of action is considered the correct way in Wikipedia, so I can correct this article and also keep it in mind for the future too.
By the way, thanks for revising my article in the first place. Wikichap33 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Wikichap33: I should have been more clear on the decline: while there are some sources referenced, it's not clear what information in the text is being supported by what sources, and there are some formatting issues. Additions of inline citations, where the content of the article is tied to whatever source supports it, would fix the first issue. While not everything needs to be cited just for the article to be approved per se, having these inline citations is extremely useful for verifying the content of the article, especially as many of them are not in English: if the spot it should be checked for is clearly displayed, it becomes easier to verify the content within, even if it's not in Spanish. Your impression of so I could either insert tons of references, most of the to that same source (often even to the same page) is actually how things should work: each section of writing should have the appropriate sourcing. For an example of this, see Martinus (son of Heraclius), which I wrote. While there are also not many sources for him, and he is decidedly obscure, it is easy to see what text is cited to what source. Additionally, in the temple article there is some writing that is not in the tone and style of Wikipedia: for instance, Wikipedia does not usually reference itself, such as In this article you can see a digital reconstruction of how the original appearance of this temple must have been: Los Mármoles -Raíces de Peralêda. We also try to avoid external links within the text, only really using them to link sources. The Main Source section shouldn't exist, as it's contrary to the way articles should be written: an article should roughly be formatted as: lede (a short summation of the text below, uncited as everything within is supported by the text in the body), the body (text where everything is cited to a source), and the bibliography (where citations and a list of sources should be). Additionally, there is some informal language, but that is not as huge of an issue. If you'll work on citing the material within the article, I can sweep through and fix any formatting issues; once this is done, I see no reason not to accept the article. Thank you for writing the article, it's good to see more Roman writers on the Wiki! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your detailed reply. I'll do my best to improve the article so it is at least decent for publication and tell you when I finish. Wikichap33 (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I have added some new sources and lots of references. Your article about Martinus was very helpful. I decided to use the same short reference format you used. I also improved reference format. I hope it is now acceptable. Thanks for all your tips. Wikichap33 (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Promotion of Martinus (son of Heraclius)
March flowers
 | |
| my story today |
Congratulations! I meant to review, but obviously it wasn't needed ;) - Today we remember the 150th birthday of Max Reger, who saw the horrors of a world war right when it began in 1914, while others were still in high patriotic moods --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter
 
Election results: In our December 2022 coordinator election, Reidgreg and Tenryuu stepped down as coordinators; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo were returned as coordinators until 1 July. For the second time, no lead coordinator was chosen. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 21 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 14 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 170 articles totaling 389,737 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our February Copy Editing Blitz focused on October and November 2022 requests, and the March and April 2022 backlogs. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine claimed at least one copy-edit; and between them, they copy-edited 39,150 words in 22 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: Sign up now for our month-long March Backlog Elimination Drive. Barnstars awarded will be posted here after the drive closes. Progress report: As of 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 73 requests since 1 January 2023, all but five of them from 2022, and the backlog stands at 1,872 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|