User talk:Gog the Mild/Archive 2

The article Battle of Crécy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Crécy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This one was really close to a Quarter-Million Award. BTW, and I realize this hasn't come up in the FA review, is there a reason this article doesn't have an In culture section? There must be a number of notable works (literature, poems, films, etc) which use the battle as a setting (though the only one I spotted with an article is Crécy (comics), which I quite liked when I read it some years ago). Perhaps a See also at the end. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg. Yes, it did. I was surprised that it wasn't over. Feel free to give it a few more views.

Popular culture. Well personally I'm, surprisingly, unaware of any works of note which use it significantly. When I picked it up, it had a "Fictional accounts" section, all but reference free, copied below. After this brief exchange on the talk page I removed it. I am not a fan of Pop Cult sections, partly because they too easily become a sprawling rag bag of loosely connected works. I am prepared to be persuaded that this is an exception (as I was with Battle of Neville's Cross), but to my surprise, over the 17 years of its existence, no one has attached a notable work to it. (Obviously, "notable" is a subjective concept.) If you are aware of any, do please suggest them.

I note in passing that in the extract below Shakespeare mangles Crécy and Poitiers, fought 10 years apart, together.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Fictional accounts

A fictional portrayal of the Battle of Crécy is included in the Ken Follett novel World Without End. The book describes the battle from an English knight's perspective, that of an archer, and from that of a neutral observer. This novel was made into a telefilm in 2012 and the Battle of Crécy is included, albeit in a very summarized form.

Another depiction can be found in Warren Ellis' and Raulo Caceres' graphic novel Crécy, which frames the battle as a narration by a Suffolk archer; or in Bernard Cornwell's fictional account of an archer in the Hundred Years' War, Harlequin (UK title), part of the Grail Quest novel series, or The Archer's Tale (US title). The lead character Thomas of Hookton, is an English archer who fights in the battle.

The battle appears in "The campaign of 1346, as an historical drama" by Christopher Godmond.

It is also portrayed in Ronald Welch's Bowman of Crécy and in David Gilman's Master of War.

The protagonist of P.C. Doherty's The Death of a King (1985) is present at the battle and describes it from the perspective of a bowman on the right flank near the village of Crécy.

In G. A. Henty's historical fiction book St. George for England, the main character is present at the battles of Cressy and Poitiers.^[1]

The battle is a crucial episode in the life of the hero Hugh de Cressi (his name is apparently a coincidence), in the H. Rider Haggard novel Red Eve. The battle is described in some detail, including, for example the failure of the Genoese bowmen, attributed in the book, as above, to wet strings; and also the merciless treatment of the French wounded.^[2]

In Michael Jecks 2014 book Fields of Glory, the entire campaign is viewed from the point of view of a vintaine of archers under the command of the non fictional Sir John de Sully commencing with the landing in Normandy and terminating with a detailed description of the eventual final battle at Crecy.^[3] It highlights the devastating effects of the chevauchée as the English laid waste to the countryside in an attempt to bring the French army into the field to protect its inhabitants.^{[citation needed]}

The battle features at the climax of another 2014 novel, Son of the Morning, by Mark Barrowcliffe writing as Mark Alder. A fantasy take on the Hundred Years' War, the novel depicts English and French forces as being supported by devils and angels.^[4]

The battle is referred to several times – though never seen directly – in Michael Crichton's 1999 science-fiction novel Timeline, in which a group of archaeologists are transported back in time to fourteenth-century France. Crichton gives credit to the English for winning the battle in the face of vastly superior forces, citing the English willingness to adopt a less ceremonial style of battle and instead using what he calls "shock troops" – mercenary archers who were paid a wage for their services, trained on a daily basis much like modern soldiers, and were deadly accurate in their ability to make enemy kills from a distance of what would today be the equivalent of two or more football fields, something that would have been impossible for the French chevaliers with their short-range style of fighting.

In Shakespeare's play Henry V (act II scene IV) the King of France refers to the battle when he warns his noblemen not to underestimate Henry, who is:

...bred out of that bloody strain

That haunted us in our familiar paths:

Witness our too much memorable shame

When Cressy battle fatally was struck,

And all our princes captiv'd by the hand

Of that black name, Edward, Black Prince of Wales;

Whiles that his mountain sire, on mountain standing,

Up in the air, crown'd with the golden sun,

Saw his heroical seed, and smiled to see him,

Mangle the work of nature and deface

The patterns that by God and by French fathers

Had twenty years been made. This is a stem

Of that victorious stock; and let us fear

The native mightiness and fate of him.

References

1. [1]

   "Saint George for England". Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 1 August 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
2. [2]

   Red Eve. 6 April 2006. Archived from the original on 23 March 2015. Retrieved 29 March 2015. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
3. [3]

   "Fields of Glory – Kindle edition by Michael Jecks. Literature & Fiction Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com".
4. [4]

   Orion Books publisher page for Son of the Morning. Archived from the original on 25 April 2016. Retrieved 21 February 2015. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Hi Goran tek-en. I wonder if you can help me in formatting a request for a map for a FAC properly? (I had the same request up previously, but made such a mess of it that no one at Maps could understand what I was asking for.) The "standard" map[s] for the Battle of Cape Ecnomus is this:

However it is inaccurate. I could describe the changes needed, or the three maps above could be replaced with the three similar ones on this web site.

My problem is that I do not know how to get the first map to show on the map requests page, and so I can't make clear what I would like. I imagine that it is simple once you know how, but I don't. If you could share with me how to do this, I would be grateful.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2019. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 16 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: Our June blitz will soon be upon us; it will begin at 00:01 on 16 June (UTC) and will close at 23:59 on 22 June (UTC). The themes are "nature and the environment" and all requests. March Drive: Thanks to everyone for their work in March's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from 182 of the articles tagged in our original target months October and November 2018, and the month finished with 64 target articles remaining from November and 811 in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 22 requests for copyedit in March; the month ended with 34 requests pending. Of the 32 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the April Blitz; the blitz ran from 14 to 20 April (UTC) inclusive and the themes were Sports and Entertainment. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 267 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 605 articles. May Drive: During the May Backlog Elimination Drive, Guild copy-editors removed copyedit tags from 191 of the 192 articles tagged in our original target months of November and December 2018, and January 2019 was added on 22 May. We finished the month with 81 target articles remaining and a record low of 598 articles in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 24 requests for copyedit during the May drive, and the month ended with 35 requests pending. Of the 26 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Gog. I think it is possible you made some kind of confusion when submiting your latest topic for consideration. So. You created a featured topic proposal, but submitted under "Good Topics" here and then put notices on the articles' talk pages saying it's a good topic candidate. But it was submited as featured, that why the link is red on the talk pages. I would fix it myself, but I didn't want to overstep. Cheers, RetiredDuke (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@RetiredDuke: Hi. I am very far from expert at this, so any and all advice is welcome. However, the topic, while down as {{Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Chevauchée of Edward III of 1346 /archive1}} is exactly the same as all other GTCs. So I am stumped. I would be grateful if you could fix it and point me towards the diff, so that I will know for next time. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey; I'm also not knowledgeable about WP Topics, I think I just stumbled across a small inconsistency in the template in that it doesn't link directly to the nomination when said nomination is occurring. I thought you might had made a small mistake but now I see that when the topic is promoted as featured the delegate eventually solves the issue, archiving the discussion in the process. Sorry to bother you with the issue, I was just curious. Good luck with the nomination, it's some impressive work. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@RetiredDuke: Thanks. And while checking everything I did discover that I had missed tagging the main GT article, so it was as well you had me checking things; so thanks for that too. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

On 15 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Calais (1346–1347), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the largest English army to serve overseas prior to 1600 was gathered at the Siege of Calais in 1347? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Calais (1346–1347). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Siege of Calais (1346–1347)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could run your archiving bot on the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill article. I'm currently reviewing it for GAN and a large percentage of links have unfortunately died, making it difficult to assess them. Thanks! Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Femke Nijsse. The bot seems to be down. As soon as it is working again I will do that. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I see you so far managed to rescue one dead link (which has been undone after a subsequent copyright violation reversal :( ). Most of the Knoxville News Sentinel sources point get redirected towards the home page for me. Do you know whether it's possible to get archived pages for those? Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Femke Nijsse The bot has finally, finally been debugged and I have turned it loose on your article. Has it done what you wanted it to? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

That will be enough for a proper review if the article is renominated, thanks :). If you feel like improving it further: the bot indicated that many links are not dead, while they in fact are (leading to main page of news website). This is for instance the case with citation 9. Citation 8 has not been archived, but is tagged with dead-link tag. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Femke Nijsse So far as I can see, all of the cites are now backed up, except for 8, 41 and 43, which are correctly tagged as dead. Unfortunately there is a lot that I can do about them - my skill set is limited in this respect. They are probably still in the Tennessean or AP somewhere. If you do find them and relink them, ping me straight away and I'll back them up now that the bot is working. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Siege of Berwick (1333) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 20, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 20, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA.

I'm unlikely to run your Caen TFARP for 26 July this time. Although we have recently relaxed the rules to allow two TFAs in a month by the same FA nominator, they need to be on unrelated topics, such as a bird and a constellation (to give a recent example). Two medieval battles in a week is too much, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Jimfbleak Thanks for that. I will run an eye over it, although I have unofficial responsibility to check all TFAs copy edit-wise.

I hadn't realised that it was even theoretically possible to have too many medieval battles. Ah well. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the "examination of a siege which led to a catastrophe for Scottish arms and England becoming once again embroiled in the running sore of the Scottish wars"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

The elusive & bashful WikiGnome

Gog the Mild

Editor of the Week for the week beginning June 23, 2019

Guild of Copy Editors member, a WikiGnome, and a WikiProject Military History member. 55% of 20.000 edits are to mainspace. Kind and cooperative cohort that gives proper feedback. Outstanding maintenance work and copy editing.

Recognized for

keeping Wikipedia neat and tidy by rescuing sources and tagging dead links

Notable work(s)

Chevauchée of Edward III (1346), Gascon campaign of 1345, Siege of Aiguillon, Siege of Berwick (1333)

Submit a nomination

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Gog the Mild displays his multi-faceted nature as a Guild of Copy Editors member, a WikiGnome, and a WikiProject Military History member. He has been a Wikipedian for 5 years and one month but most recently has accelerated his editing activity (JAN2018). 55% of his 20.000 edits are to mainspace. Gog is considered by many as a kind and cooperative cohort that gives proper feedback. His many GA's, FA's and DYK's display "outstanding" maintenance work and copy editing (See Chevauchée of Edward III (1346) (GA), Gascon campaign of 1345 (FA), Battle of Bergerac (FA) or Siege of Berwick (1333) (FA). In his effort "...to keep Wikipedia neat and tidy" Gog often rescues sources and tags dead links within Wikipedia articles. He considers himself a blunt talker but only so that he can "move on" to the next task.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 19:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Well deserved! Congrats! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Belated congratulation Gog. --Gazal world (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate the extra vote, I saw you accidentally voted twice on Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Mercury Seven/archive1. You may want to remove the most recent one. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 23:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE June 2019 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work in the blitz, and thanks also for voting in the elections! – Reidgreg (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog and thanks for creating the article. It has been on my interest list. I was reading online that the chevauchée was led through the lands of John I, Count of Armagnac, during initial part, as he had reverted allegiance back to France. Does Sumption mention this? Juillac was hard to find initially but will need to look at former province further. Anyway will await your expansion and I will always fill red links if I can. Regards Newm30 (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Newm30. Yes, the raid initially headed straight for Armagnac and "Burned a broad path across the province". As ever, it is more complicated, and John's role will feature greatly in the prelude when I get round to writing out the article properly - hopefully in the next week or so. He was, of course, the main French commander in the region. Your red link filling is much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Newm30. Most of the body of the article is going to be replaced as I remove material from the 130 year old source, so it would make sense for you not to do too much work on it just yet. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. Was just linking a few things. Look forward to your rewrite. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Gog, was wondering if Scottish raids in 1355, battle of Nesbit Moor, sacking of Berwick and Burnt Candlemas could be written into prelude? Regards Newm30 (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: Definitely not, IMO. They are separate articles and had little to do with and little effect on what happened in the south of France. Feel free to differ, but I don't see how the Scottish border raids had anything to do with what the Black Prince was up to. He didn't even know about them. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It probably all belongs in Burnt Candlemas. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking of whether the above should be added because of the following section in prelude The French hoped to distract Edward with an attack from Scotland and, despite being chronically short of money, spent a large amount encouraging the Scottish nobles. The English allocated only a modest force to guard their northern border, and much of this was withdrawn after a truce was agreed in September? The raids, battle, sacking and Edward II’s response may tie in here, but will leave it up to you. Maybe an article on Edward III’s chevauchée in Picardy in 1355 could be the place for it? Regards Newm30 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking that it all belonged in your Burnt Candlemas, but let's see. Sometimes as you research an article links come out you hadn't expected, and vice versa. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: Hi, I think that this article could do with a map. There are few on the net and no good ones. You seem to be the expert at commissioning maps, and I wonder if you might be able to commission one for this article?

The best would be Sumption's. (PS I am listening to a podcast of his Reith Lectures while I write this - very interesting.) It would need a little tweaking, but I could scan and email it to you. Or the map from page viii of this could be tweaked. Anything you could do to help this would be much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I have been able to obtain from a map illustrator a draft map for review and suggested improvements. Please respond here so I can transfer feedback to the map illustrator. They will be unavailable for a few weeks as well. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: That looks great. Some minor suggestions:

• Only one arrow to the left of Narbonne.
• Is it possible to label the rivers Garonne and Ariège? The Garonne is the one that that flows through Carbonne and the Ariège is the next right.
• Importantly, the green arrow to the left of Narbonne: it should not cut across the outward route where it does; from where it meets the outward path it should follow the same route almost to the gates of Carcassone then turn sharply south to Limoux.

Otherwise it looks great. And thank you very much. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Following up on the 18th Div article. Two editors went over the article and made quite a few changes. In your opinion, is it now ready to meet FAC 1a, or would you suggest additional work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi EnigmaMcmxc. I really want to be sympathetic to this. You are asking for about 90 minutes of my time. I am, or was, prepared to give it. When I commented on this article's last FAC I made 12 suggestions regarding the lead. Only two of them have been addressed. A couple may be debatable, but others, while you may (or may not) consider them picky, seem to me to be areas where changes need to be made. Given that changes haven't been made where I have flagged up precisely what my concerns are, what incentive can you provide for me to invest a further 80 minutes hoping that the rest is better? (Apologies if this seems blunt; you may wish to refer to the second paragraph of my user page.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Blunt is perfectly fine. You heavily recommended a GOCE work over the article with FAC 1a in mind. This was requested. Afterwards, a GOCE editor did so (another editor also made changes). Per your comments at review, I left the issue of prose to the copyeditor. Based off the above, you feel that specific issues were not addressed by the GOCE. With that in mind, I have revisited the article and made changes to the lede as you specified at review. It is not about being picky or not, my only purpose is to create a informative article for the readers.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc: I try to be solicitous of people's potential feelings. You have clearly put an enormous amount of work into this and I don't know if you have skin like a rhino or are a delicate blossom. I haven't reread the lead; I am happy to take your word. Yes, IMO the article is in an appropriate state to go for FAC in terms of 1a. I don't mean that that there are not areas for improvement - although there are precious few pieces of English that pass that! - but that it now reads pretty well, and that many of the issues are on military terminology or technical areas. Broadly it looks pretty good. Best of luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and thoughts. I shall re-nominate, and see where things go.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
• Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
• SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
• Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

G'day Gog, just a nudge that you can nominate Battle of Blanchetaque for TFA now as noms are open for August. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 52 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed, congratulations for your WikiChevrons. Thank you for your help in 52 reviews between those months and thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Why thank you CPA-5, I appreciate that. And thank you for your 64 reviews. I knew that you did a lot of reviews, but I didn't realise that you were that busy. That is very impressive, and I for one certainly appreciate your insightful and, yes, eagle eyed reviews. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I couldn't believe that after I got my WikiChevrons. PM has 80 reviews so I guess I'm doing fine in those reviews in the last few months. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Are these numbers right? Because I thought I was granted more reviews than I thought I performed as well. Wonder if it is counting number of signatures total instead of number of reviews with your signatures? That would match closer to the number I received. Kees08 (Talk) 18:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: I am pretty sure that it counts the number of articles where you leave a signature, not those that you do a full review at. So it includes "drive by comments". For more see comments at end of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards#Quarterly reviewing awards; you may want to add a comment. That said, I keep a separate tally of mine (here) and the MilHist tally seems about right. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, for some reason I thought this was for A-class reviews only. The numbers make more sense now. Kees08 (Talk) 19:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The entry requirement is that you have assessed one ACR which was closed during the period. Once that is met, all MilHist article reviews are counted. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A couple of people have been working on articles that will be featured on the main page during the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission. I was wondering if you would be interested in looking at the articles sometime between now and then (couple weeks from now) for copy editing and to see if there are any glaring problems. Trying to minimize the number of complaints, since a couple of complaints on a few articles would add up to a lot on one day. Let me know and I can give you a list; I am doing one last check of the easier ones myself right now. Kees08 (Talk) 18:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: Sure. Could you do me a favour and post one of them - maybe the longest, or the trickiest - on the GOCE request page and ping me here. It is GoCE drive month, and that way I get brownie points for doing my bit for GoCE. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I can post two requests at a time right? I can request two if that works better. Kees08 (Talk) 19:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

No. You're allowed to post two, but I am only allowed to pick up one at a time. If you want me to work on them, only post one at a time; if you are happy with any GoCE review, then by all means post two. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me who picks it up; I doubt anyone would grab anything that low in the queue anyways. I am finalizing another article I will post there. If you need any of the offline sources for Felicette let me know. Kees08 (Talk) 19:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kees08, Félicette completed. Let me know what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that was a lot of work! I think you found every sentence I hated. I made one minor change, and other than that it looks great. If you end up taking Zond 5 on, I think it will be more work. I read through it and was a little disappointed. I think it is choppy and is missing some gaps that help bridge events. I was hoping someone not familiar with the event could let me know if I need to spend a lot more time on it. No worries if you don't work on it though. Thanks for the Félicette edit, hope you found it interesting! Kees08 (Talk) 16:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Kees08, fascinating. I have finished a first run through Zond 5. Obviously, feel free to revert or query anything I have got wrong or which you don't understand. There are some queries on the articles talk page. If you could respond to them I will have a second, more detailed, run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Interested in copy editing more articles? I have enough lined up for the main page in the next week I doubt you could get to them all, but would appreciate any that you have time for! Kees08 (Talk) 16:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

To be more specific, these articles will be on the main page during the anniversary of the Apollo 11 flight: Maspalomas Station, Roger B. Chaffee, NASA Astronaut Group 2, NASA Astronaut Group 3, Michael Collins, Sputnik 1, Felicette, Luna 2, Mae Jemison, Valentina Tereshkova, Yuri Gagarin, David Scott, Zond 5, Charles Bassett, SOLRAD 2, Tundra orbit, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Apollo 11, Parkes Observatory, Mary Jackson, and Margaret Hamilton. Of those, David Scott, Michael Collins, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Roger B. Chaffee, and Apollo 11 are featured articles so should be in decent shape. Yuri Gagarin has an ongoing A-class review, NASA Astronaut Group 2 and NASA Astronaut Group 3 have open GA nominations if you want to contribute by reviewing. If you are interested in copy editing more I can request them at GOCE. Thanks for your help so far, and if you do not have time no worries! Kees08 (Talk) 17:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Gog:

I notice you have a working tag beside 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division as well as more recently Zond 5. Is 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division‎ completed and ready for archiving?

Thanks,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Apologies. I wanted to have a last skim of the notes of 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division before signing off on it, but for some reason included it as completed in my article list, and then lost track of it when the request in the thread above came in. Thank you for prompting me to wrap it up - it did need a couple of further tweaks - and I am glad that someone is keeping a proper track of things.

As it happens, Zond 5 is also now complete, and so marked on the requests page - just flagging this up here for clarity. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: No worries, thanks for the clarification. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

• Partnerships
• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

In approximately six weeks, we will open nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections. Have you given any consideration to running? You'd make a good coordinator, I think, and Lord knows we could use some new blood in the team. Think it over, and if you have any questions you can ask me or check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I second that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thirded by another talk page stalker - I've been meaning to suggest you consider a crack at it. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@TomStar81: No; thank you (nicely qualified ); I shall. @Peacemaker67 and Zawed: The encouragement is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Damn you have a lot of talk page stalkers here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Fourthed by another who respects your wisdom and editorial expertise. (Nudging you firmly, but gently to raise your hand and step forward.) 47thPennVols (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: Darn! When you suggest, I am just going to have to do it. Thank you for the vote of confidence. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• My pleasure. Glad the collective nudges worked. 47thPennVols (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A nudge from you is all but irresistible. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The article Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Constantine ✍ 19:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog, can you review edits to Alexander Seton (died 1332) on 23 July by 31.48.73.180 and rollback if you think it’s warranted? Newm30 (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Newm30. I have made some changes and added some sources. Likewise to Battle of Kinghorn. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Newm30 (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Gog the Mild. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Perhaps of use.
Message added 12:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

——SerialNumber54129 12:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Exceedingly useful. I only have half a dozen of those, so that is going to keep me out of trouble for a while. What an unexpected pleasure. Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This is to let you know that Battle of Blanchetaque has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 24 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 24, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the article about a "battle from the Hundred Years' War. The English army was trapped by the French in an area stripped of food. At Blanchtaque the English escaped by fighting their way across a tidal ford of the River Somme, against a French blocking force. Two days later the English fought and heavily defeated the main French army at the Battle of Crecy."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

G’day Gog, I was curious whether you had any insight as to why Walter Manny’s banner (Or, three chevrons sable - Gold three chevrons black) is shown in the picture in the infobox? I couldn’t see any mention of Manny in the text. Regards Newm30 (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

In the article on Walter it mentions that Edward III, according to Froissart, fought incognito under Manny’s banner. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

According to Froissart, Manny was the hero of every episode of this phase of the war. Hence the illustration in his Chronicles shows Edward (figuratively) under Manny. No other source supports this and several, and all the modern sources I have accessed, state that Edward fought anonymously and under no banner; which is why Manny is not mentioned in the article.

The image made a change from the style of the one later in the article, which I have been using a lot in infoboxes. I didn't think that anyone would notice the minor inconsistency. I should have guessed that you would be on the ball. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: I have to go back on the above. I have found a modern RS who backs Froissart, so I have amended the text accordingly. And specifically mentioned the banner. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that and noticed page was moved today. Will try to work on a couple of the captured French knights articles soon. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

		The (modern) Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 40,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE July 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 3rd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting three long articles during the GOCE July 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 1st Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 11,853 words – during the GOCE July 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad that you finished that long article on time! The drive had the highest editor participation since May 2015, and brought the copy editing backlog to a record low of 585 articles! Much thanks for taking part! – Reidgreg (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thankee kindly Reidgreg. It was a bit of a struggle to get it done in time. Other Wikipedia activities and RL conspired. And the article was a real pig. Not helped I think by it being a topic I know a little about; I kept finding more details I wanted to tweak.

GOCE is ticking along very nicely. Oh that all of Wikipedia ran as smoothly. Flirting with a backlog of only 500 seems ridiculous. There seem to be two or three very active new copy editors. At least, new to me. I also note quite a bit of reviewing going on, which is good to see.

How are you, and how are you finding the brave new world of proper internet connections?

I intend to throw a couple of ideas into the MilHist discussion about involving GOCE in March. Feel free to poke holes in them.

On this, how would you feel about "advertising" the Requests service a little? For example, there are a lot of MilHist related articles that have been at GAN for many months. I suspect, without proof, that the level of prose (and, to a lesser extent, MoS compliance) puts many potential reviewers off: they can see that the article has issues which prevent it from being promoted, but lack the knowledge and/or motivation to address them. I similarly suspect that most of the nominators are unaware of the Requests service, and possibly unaware that their articles may benefit from it. Maybe a templated suggestion on the talk page of selected nominators that they list the article on Requests? Followed by flagging up on the MilHist Project talk page that the article now has the GOCE stamp of approval, to remind potential reviewers? Just a thought. (I have some others up my sleeve, but am running this one past you by way of a test.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The new Internet connection is still overwhelming. I've been visiting Proquest archives quite a bit for source material. Unfortunately, my reading and writing speed haven't experienced a corresponding increase, so I've got a bit of information overload. I've also discovered this website called YouTube. I try not to spend too much time there, but they do have some useful information (like police press conferences and some of the comedy awards ceremonies which weren't telecast). One other thing: I was gifted an Apple watch and now my second-favourite game is this thing called "exercising" which awards something very much like barnstars for various fitness activities. Wikipedia remains my favourite game.

GOCE was a well-oiled machine before I joined, I'm just minding the store. Legend has it that there was once a "league of copy editors" that didn't fare so well. It disbanded and the GOCE was formed with the structures developed at Milhist. Eager to see how the proposed collaborative drive will work.

Advertising is good. I'd note that we do have a fairly steady stream of requests, it's the low-assessment backlog articles we're depleting. Targeting GANs could skew the distribution of available articles for our copy editors, but I suppose some advertising could also be done at DYK. We don't seem to have an existing template to invite requests. I'd recommend caution with a templated message so that it isn't perceived as a big stamp saying "your writing sucks!". Because, you know, the truth hurts. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There is probably a movie script in there - a sudden and overwhelming introduction to the 21st century. Enjoy.

Ah. So GOCE is not really looking for more quality articles to fine tune, more for stubs and starts that the newer and/or less experienced members can work on? Is that about right? If so, I had best back off on thoughts of how some GOCE input may improve the throughput of GA and GAs; with MilHist as a bit of a laboratory to test ideas in. But as was pointed out, GOCE has 6,123 articles tagged as needing work on grammar - did you work on some as part of last year's Drive? So there is plenty to go at. (I am a little surprised that no one has ever mass-tagged them with "Needs Copy Edit".)

Template. I was thinking more of "Hi. Your well sourced and presented GAN has been unfairly overlooked for assessment by the Cabal. Despair not, GOCE can give it a quick wash and scrub up, tweaking it in ways to make it more palatable to the Cabal's obscure prejudices; and then advertise it for you on MilHist's talk page for a discerning assessor. Wadayathink?" GOCE can regulate the flow by placing as few or as many templates as they wish. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

(laughing aloud) Nice. The worst that could happen is that the Requests list gets a little longer. The backlog has about 300 tags added per month, which isn't likely to stop. There have been discussions about how to best target our efforts toward the articles in most need of copy editing, and this seems like a good idea. A thought: if you put the template on the article talk page, there could be a category associated with the template to track the article; if the GOCE copyeditor places a copyedit tag on the article talk page, you could then cross-reference the categories to check which articles are copy edited and ready for review. Otherwise, there could maybe be a parameter like the B-class checklist (I think that's for grammar). Or maybe this could be integrated into the way Milhist already tracks assessment. Or you could manually keep a list while we see how viable this is.

Ah. Category:Military history articles needing attention to grammar has 6,000+ members and Category:Military history articles needing attention only to grammar has 41 members. Quite the difference. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Yes. GOCE could sort out the grammar of 6,123 articles and it would only result in 41 getting promoted a grade.

I like that thought. Are you OK with me loosely suggesting this to the MilHist coordinators, along the lines discussed above, and caveated?

I assume that it is obvious that the reason I am pushing on this is because I am one of the few editors involved in both GOCE and MilHist and I would like to see my two sets of Wikifriends getting on together. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course if one were to have a GOCE MilHist Drive Month (if) then the 41 Grammar Only articles would add a bit of variety. If one wanted a few more, I suspect that I could find a few dozen where I could readily fix say Structure, thus converting them to Grammar Only.

Nor would it be difficult to find some B Class in need of attention. The Grammar Section of the B Class assessment criteria will make you smile. Or possibly weep. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, got a little busy. I'm not sure that I want to propose anything new that might take energy/focus away from the proposed March GOCE–MilHist Drive. Although this could certainly be an option for targeting articles in need of attention. Maybe this could be brought up in that context, or as a trial? If you want to do small-scale referrals to WP:GOCER, you can just go ahead and do that. GA and DYK reviewers often make such suggestions to nominators, and maybe try to track it to see how it turns out (how many do it, time to completion, whether the copy edit was sufficient, and whether the article passes review). If you want to do more than, say, 20 referrals at once, I'd like to see the proposal taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators, to see if those with more experience might have some thoughts about it. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ha! I had meant all of my suggestions to be as part of the proposed March GOCE–MilHist Drive. But as I seem to be mostly muddying the waters I shall back off and see how things develop. I like your idea for a personal micro-trial around GANs to gather data. If I do this, I will certainly come back to the coordinators well before I get to 20. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for volunteering to look at this. I confess that when I got up this morning I was considering withdrawing the GA nom, as I'm not sure that the history section is really detailed enough - none of the refs I've found give any detail about its usage since the 17th C. I'll quite understand if you think it fails because of that, but would be very grateful for any other suggestions you could give me for improvements. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit. On a quick skim it seemed reasonable to me. Let's see how far we can take it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the GOCE of the article Bernard Fanning has been completed. It's good to go for the front page.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Wow! That was quick. Thanks. You've done a good job there. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	I appreciate your contributions to articles. Thanks for copyediting articles and being a valuable member of Guild of copy editors. :) Masum Reza📞 20:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Masumrezarock100. That is very touching of you and much appreciated. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

G'day, Gog, hope you are well. Taking you up on your offer here: Just letting you know PM and I have nominated the 10th Battalion for ACR as conom. If you are free to review, that would be fantastic. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi AR. Oh, that's a nice one. I have made a start. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello:

I've had a run through Hillary Clinton as requested, and I think it's in good shape for its TFA appearance.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks TfT. much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hope you are doing well. I am thinking about nominating Weathering with You for GA review. I've checked the article, and I think it needs to be improved a little to meet the GA criteria. Unfortunately I don't have keen eyes, so I am unable to see what's needs to be improved. If you could suggest some improvements, I'd appreciate that. Or do you think I should nominate it now? Masum Reza^📞 17:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Masumrezarock100. Completely outside anything I have ever experienced in RL or edited on Wikipedia. (I mostly edit history articles). That said, I picked up a couple of things:

• The "Reception" section seems thin for a supposedly notable film. Maybe have a look at this section in some films that have passed GAN - Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama?
• Some statements don't make sense, I assume because of lack of context. Eg "SoftBank and Weathering with You were seen to promote each other in various TV clips." I have no idea what this means. (See two points down.)
• A number of additional Wikilinks could usefully be used. (Eg Encore Films.)
• Try to read it as if it was written for someone who knows nothing about the topic, after all Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Then add in, succinctly, the information needed to understand.
• Having glanced at some other film articles, there seems to be less information than one would expect at GAN in every section other than "Plot". Eg, the two main characters each have only two short sentences of description. Compare with []. (Just a random example I found.)
• The titles of all films should be in italics - as in the tile of the article: Weathering with You.

All of that said, there is little to fault with what is there. It is good, clear, well written and solidly referenced. (Except for "The other songs include "Voice of Wind" (風たちの声 "Kaze-tachi no Koe"), "Celebration" (祝祭 "Shukusai") and "We'll Be Alright (大丈夫 "Daijōbu").) So I suspect that it could be worked up into a GAN, but I don't think that it is there yet.

As I said, this is completely outside my area, so treat everything I say with care. Let me know if you do want to work Weathering with You towards GAN and I will keep an eye on it and perhaps offer occasional advice. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I will work on the things you pointed above. About the songs it is mentioned here. Would you mind if I copy your suggestions to the talk page, so that every one can see it? I want to work on this article to make it a GA. Masum Reza^📞 19:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course not - transfer away. Include the bits where I say that I know nothing about film articles.

Use that link as the cite, if you think that it is a reliable source. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Done copypasted to the talk page. So you mean that link isn't a reliable source? I asked on #wikipedia-en IRC channel and one editor said that it could be reliable. It's basically like a online label, he/she said. I am not sure if it's a officially added by Radwimps. Or shall I cite iTunes or Spotify source instead? Masum Reza^📞 23:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I just realized that the website has it's Wikipedia page. It looks like it's a reliable source. Masum Reza^📞 23:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Also I requested for copyediting on GOCE requests page per the automatic peer reviewer. I don't know how many time it will take since there is already a bunch of requests. Would you mind copyediting? I don't know how to do it. Or I'll just have to wait. Masum Reza^📞 23:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Masumrezarock100. I do some copy editing for GOCE, although not usually films. I would be happy to pick this up, but given the rate at which you are expanding it, are you sure that you wouldn't prefer me to wait until it stabilises? Your call, but to me it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to copy edit it and for you to add more material straight afterwards. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You have a point. I was stupid enough not to think about that. I will ask you to take a look at the article once I finish fixing the issues you addressed. Thanks. Masum Reza^📞 23:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You were just enthusiastic. We've all been there; certainly including me. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

" I will post any thoughts re improvements for ACR or FAC on the talk page."

Much obliged, A-Class review will be my next step for this article. Not sure, with it being such a short one, if it would be a good candidate for a FA review though. With the shorter divisional articles, I have usually stopped at A-Class.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc: I have had a run through (doing a little copy editing as I went) and it seems ACR ready to me. It seems more or less FAC ready too. ",200 words is a long way from being too short for FAC; it just needs to be comprehensive, which, IMO, this is. If you have a spare FAC slot, I would put it in.

I am certain that reviewers will find many things to comment on - I may even find some myself - but the only non-picky thing I spotted was "As a result of the loss, Cunningham agitated for the division to be renamed to re-create the 51st." needing a cite.

Also, you don't need cites 2, 3 and 4 in the infobox. Like the lead, information in the infobox should be duplicated in the main article, and so doesn't need separately referencing.

Get it nominated for ACR! Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The smallest ever Featured Article was 639 words. No need to worry about length. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

How does this article look as far as taking it to the next quality level? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I can add much more about his journalism, see here, but it seems very trivial. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Eddie891. I have done some superficial copy editing and put some thoughts on the article's talk page. IMO there is sufficient on his journalism, which is not what he was notable for. I have seen worse nominated at ACR, and I think that if most of the issues I have flagged up were addressed it should have few problems. (I haven't looked at the sourcing.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog - I hope you don't mind me reaching out to you for a bit of help here, but you seemed to know what you were doing with regards to image copyright during our recent GAN, and I thought you might be able to help me out. While digging around for sources for another listed building I am writing an article about, I came across this - the genuinely fascinating story of the benefactor who paid for its construction. There's obviously an article in it (indeed, there's probably a novel in it, if I had the time/talent), but I'm thinking about images. The subject died in the second half of the nineteenth century, so I'm thinking that any images of her I can get would be copyright free (?). Can I simply copy the picture from this blog and stick it on Commons with a generic 'old image' tag, or is it more complicated than that?

Apologies for what is probably a dumb question, but I've never actually been through the process of uploading an image before - I've always used ones that were already on Commons, and I'm wary of breaching copyright by just grabbing stuff off the internet. I'd be entirely satisfied (and very grateful) if you just want to just point me at a relevant guideline page rather than typing out an answer, if that's possible. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit. That's fascinating stuff, with several articles in it. Not a dumb question at all. Copyright is insanely complicated. And I am, honestly, relatively ignorant on it. That said, my understanding is that for an image in the US to be PD, which is the key point, you need to declare that it was published in the US by the end of 1923 (you may be asked to evidence this, evidence of publication outside the US prior to 1924 may or may not be accepted in lieu) or 70 years after the death of the photographer, or artist, or whatever. Note that this has nothing to do with when the picture was taken. If you don't know the date of the death of the photographer this can be frustrating. (I once had to scrap a nice image from 1879 because there was a (slim) possibility that it may not have met that criteria.) For anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. Fair use is another issue, but I don't think that it needs to apply here; but bear it in mind in case you get stuck. Once you fins an image, if you are unsure, feel free to ping me: "Ignorance shared is ignorance doubled." Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

PS I have never uploaded an image either, so I am sure that assisting you would be educational. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks - so far, the only image I've found is this one - do you have an opinion on that? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

(Repeated edit conflict .) Girth Summit I am just getting the image at that link, with no background info nor context. As an image it looks fine. Could perhaps do with a little more contrast, but that's what Photoshop is for. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're not confident giving an opinion, I might drop a note to Diannaa - she seems to be the guru on these matters? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Always a good idea to go direct to the experts. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, scratch that - I reread what you said, you're saying that it's the date of publication, not the date the picture was taken, that matters - so, I need to try to find out when that picture was first published. Ouch - you're right, this is insanely complicated! I'll do some more digging - I might be able to find a picture published in one of the newspapers referenced in that blog, which would have a publication date. Otherwise - an article without an image isn't the end of the world... Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 19:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Policy suggests that an article ideally should have an image or an infobox. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again, and sorry for the edit conflicts - I think I got a bit over-excited there! I'll see if I can find any more, and consult with Diannaa before publishing anything. I'll let you know the outcome... Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there - just in case you were interested, see Margaret Macpherson Grant. Diannaa seemed happy that the photograph would have been out of copyright, and I worked up the article with help from SusunW on the content. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:. That looks really well written. On first glance GAN ready, apart from being a little image short. Maybe the one from St Margaret's Church, Aberlour and one of Aberlour House, perhaps a cropped version of File:The Gate House at Aberlour House - geograph.org.uk - 1149702.jpg? Nice job of uploading; I now know where to come when I need help with that. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Ha! I just followed the wizard's instructions (saying that makes me feel like a hobbit), but if I can ever be of any assistance of course I'd be happy to help. I totally agree with you about the pictures - I was thinking about where to insert the image of St Margaret's, but what I really want is a proper one of Aberlour House, rather than the gatehouse. Our article on it is totally outdated by the way - the school closed in 2004, it's currently the head office of Walkers Shortbread, who apparently did a pretty good job of renovating and restoring it - that's my next project. I was thinking about writing to walkers and asking if they'd be willing to donate a couple of pictures to commons - thought it would be worth a punt, and probably easier than a 16-hour round trip to take pics myself! Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Surely Walkers will want to keep on the right side of the person writing the Wikipedia article on their head office? And you seem to be in full steam ahead mode. Good for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello:

My copy edit of Taylor Swift is finished. It's good to go on the front page on the 23rd.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Wonderful. Thanks again for the work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

In this edit you added access dates to a bunch of references that had not had them previously - why? The article was consistently not using access dates for refs that had set publication dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: My understanding was that it is better to include access dates than not, on an individual cite basis, as any access date adds to the information available. Are you saying that policy requires that information be removed in the interests of consistency? WP:CITEWEB suggests "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include: ... the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)." Given the nature of the web, it will be a rare article where the publication date of every page is known; which to me makes it unlikely that one could not use access dates at all for an article of any size. (And stay within policy.) I cannot find mention of skipping either the option or the requirement because previous cites have. I am, obviously, happy to be corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

As per Template:Cite_news#URL links with a set publication date don't require them but those for dynamic sites or an unknown date do - if the division is done that way consistently across an article it shouldn't be amended without discussion. It's particularly pointless to add access date for GBooks links - I complain when I see that done at an FAC ;-). If the tool you're using doesn't have the potential to accommodate that variation then that's a problem with the tool that should be reported. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Personally I would follow a content guideline over a template instruction, but happy to bow to your preference. I have rolled back my edit. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MX (✉ • ✎) 18:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

On 29 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1355, the English marched 675 miles (1,100 km) through French territory and took so much booty that they discarded silver objects to be better able to carry off gold and jewellery? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Gog the Mild. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Battle of Neville's Cross article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 17, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 17, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Quick facts

October

... with thanks from QAI

Close

Thank you for the article! Nice to see your first FAC today, "about a battle from Edward III's annus mirabilis of 1346. During it the English defeated the French dauphin at the siege of Aiguillon, the French king at the Battle of Crécy, and the Scottish king at Neville's Cross. By the end of the year they were besieging Calais, which they were to take and hold for two hundred years. A large and well equipped Scottish army marched into England, spurred by Philip VI of France to intervene under the terms of the Auld Alliance in order to take pressure off northern France. Little opposition was expected, but the English marcher lords raised an army half the size of the Scots, marched rapidly north and met them on the edge of the northern English city of Durham. - The Scots mishandled their army, they were goaded by longbow fire into attacking across broken ground, part of their force fled without engaging and they were routed with heavy loss. The Scottish king was taken prisoner; he was to be held for eleven years. The battle was part of the Second War of Scottish Independence, which continued, bloodily, but strategically the English had cleared their rear and were able to concentrate on the war with France." - I will open a peer review tomorrow for Clara Schumann, - informal checking, copy-editing and comments welcome for a recent GA of which I wrote almost nothing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! - Here's my ideal candidate for arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for what you did for Odaenathus, "king of Palmyra, king of kings of the East, saviour of Rome (at least in the minds of Roman writers), and the actual reason for Palmyra's rise! His wars against Persia healed the wounded pride of Rome which was shattered by the capture of emperor Valerian, the first Roman emperor to be captured by an enemy! But Odaenathus is overshadowed by his wife, Zenobia, and thats why not a lot of people know his story even though Zenobia contributed nothing to the power of Palmyra; she merely used what her husband built, including his army, generals and resources. Yet, she gets all the glory; the idea of a warrior queen is more attractive for people."! - I have a FAC open, did you know? And - shocking contrast - had nominated a sad DYK which appears today: Hevrin Khalaf - protest! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the sentiment, but the editor who saw this fine article through FAC was the estimable Attar-Aram syria. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

... whom I didn't fail to thank first, but who was polite enough to mention you in the nomination ;) - comments in mine - however few - most welcome, it's for Christmas, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355, - "The heir to the English throne leads his first independent command 600 miles through enemy territory; aforesaid enemy's stronger force cowers in its fortresses; leaving a trail of fire and pillage the English swagger back to base, allegedly so laden with loot that silver is discarded in favour of gold. Clearly a made-for-the-chronicles script."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that you've done something of value on the India page, but can't figure out what. What is archive-URL? If you could explain in a few lines, I'd be delighted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I am a little vague on the detailed workings, but as I understand it, it archives a copy of cited web pages as a prophylactic against link rot, more details here. I tend to do it with any "more serious" article I come across as a part of my Wikignoming. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write about our experiences together at my RfA. I really appreciate your unflagging reviews of GANs. Considering our perpetual backlog it's so appreciated. One final thanks for your understanding of my being a little slow with A Big Mooncake for Little Star. As I am able to resume normal activities I look forward to getting that up to GA standard with you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: No problem, RfA has always struck me as something of a circus, but I was happy to be able to accurately retail my interactions with you. I try to assess two GANs for every one I put through; having had 50 successful and 3 not I am about keeping up. And I am always happy to give time for editors to sort out actions at their own pace; I see no need to invent deadlines for the sake of it. Less so when this might or would deter the improvement of an article. Congratulations on sailing through RfA. To write "Use the tools wisely" would be insultingly redundant, so instead: "Enjoy!" Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346, of "Hundred Years' War. The war in Gascony was crucial to the events of the war in 1346, but was overshadowed by the English victory at Crécy in August. The Earl of Lancaster had successfully kept the cream of the French army away from Crecy by holding out at the Siege of Aiguillon before south west France was stripped of troops to face Edward III in north east France. Lancaster then took 2,000 men and cut a swathe through French territory on a mounted raid lasting seven weeks, covering 350 miles, capturing numerous French towns and castles, and sacking the provincial capital ..."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your help with this article. I was hoping you might kindly take a look at the FA review if you have time. With many kind thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi thank for archiving those referneces, and rescuing them at the India team. Can you please do it for the India FT at Olympics. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I disn't realise that you already did that for the article. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dey subrata. As a Wikignome I aim to please; and hopefully I can't do better than anticipating your requests by an hour . (I routinely archive the links of all articles on the GoCE Requests page.) If you have any others, let me know. I have run the tool over a few possible, similar articles already. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I am tagging you at the articles which ever need such treatment. Dey subrata (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello:

I have finished a copy edit of the upcoming TFY article India. Fowler&fowler who has done a lot of work recently on the article was in touch with me and I have given him a couple of suggestions to improve the article.

In any event, it is in good shape for its TFY appearance.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Twofingered Typist That is a fine job of work. Thanks.

You will be pleased, I assume, to hear that the last eleven TFAs for October seemed straight forward and that I have done the necessary. So no more big asks until the first batch from November is posted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: You're welcome. No problem with posting them. They're a welcome break from articles on albums and video games and I enjoy working on them. Cheers, Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi again - you were good enough to offer me advice (and to put up with my excitedness) when I was working on Margaret Macpherson Grant recently. I was able to convince Walkers Shortbread to donate some images (no free shortbread, unfortunately), and have now nominated it for GA. If you're interested, I'd love to work with you on a review - only if you fancy it though of course, if you're busy or not that fussed I will of course wait my turn in the queue. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 21:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! GirthSummit _(blether) 22:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2019. June election: Reidgreg was chosen as lead coordinator, and is being assisted by Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, and first-time coordinator Twofingered Typist. Jonesey95 took a respite after serving for six years. Thanks to everyone who participated! June Blitz: From 16 to 22 June, we copy edited articles on the themes of nature and the environment along with requests. 12 participating editors completed 35 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: The year's fourth backlog-elimination drive was a great success, clearing all articles tagged in January and February, and bringing the copy-editing backlog to a low of five months and a record low of 585 articles while also completing 48 requests. Of the 30 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, a participation level last matched in May 2015. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 18 to 24 August, we copy edited articles tagged in March 2019 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 413 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stood at 599 articles, close to our record month-end low of 585. Requests page: We are experimenting with automated archiving of copy edit requests; a discussion on REQ Talk (permalinked) initiated by Bobbychan193 has resulted in Zhuyifei1999 writing a bot script for the Guild. Testing is now underway and is expected to be completed by 3 October; for this reason, no manual archiving of requests should be done until the testing period is over. We will then assess the bot's performance and discuss whether to make this arrangement permanent. September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! 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, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

	As promised, some well-earned tasty nibbles.
	There's more where this came from... GirthSummit (blether) 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Will work for shortbread. @Girth Summit: Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Absolutely understand that my style will never be to all tastes. But I very much appreciate your broad view. KJP1 (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

• Wikimania
• We're building something great, but..
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• A Wikibrarian's story
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

		The Coordinator stars
		On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best luck in the coming year! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Still feeling "...a little precocious in making this nomination"? :) I had a feeling you'd be a prime candidate for coordinatorship if you stepped forward, and I'm glad to see you did.

@TomStar81: Yes. I am still very new round here, and the fact that I now have a grip on a small corner of Wikipedia has illuminated just how much darkness surrounds it. And thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Great to work with you in the same team. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Yes. Congratulations on your elevation too. It will be good to work together on something different. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Another feather in your cap, Gog. Bravo. 47thPennVols (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

May I ask you a question? I struggle to master the word whom, but I do not know when you have to use? I asked numerous people like Americans and my English teacher in the past but they do not know how to explain to me or they've never mastered it at all. I know you can say the word if it is about a lot of people like this example "The attack took place who killed 200 people whom of which 50 were British, 50 were American and rest were other groups and nationalities"? But could you kindly explain to me how to master the word? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Try reading the usage notes at the bottom of here. Any clearer? When in doubt use "who"; most people do, even when, technically, it's wrong. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• English is a really complicated language in cases of its exceptions like I know some people to whom struggle the usages of "its" and "it's", "your" and "you're", "who's" and "whose", "affect" and "effect", "here", "hear" and even "hair", "their", "they're", "there" and "there're" and others. I think I know when to use the word "whom". You say it after the preposition or as in who is an object of a verb case. Example in a question of identity or a name like "To whom are you chatting with?" or "My friend's cat just died, he was a great cat to whom was loved by my friend." right? Or "The King of Belgium arrived in the City of London, with whom he took his son with him."? Am I wrong in these example sentences (I made themself up not had stolen from a dictionary)? Urban dictionary helped me a lot "if they're correct" with trying to explain it to me. I had to think like really deep to understand the usage. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The majority of native speakers get most of those wrong. IMO non-native speakers don't have a chance. Let's not even think about pronunciation. "Though the tough cough and hiccough, plough him through." Though is pronounced as slow, tough as huff, and cough rhymes with off. Hiccough is pronounced as hick-cup, plough rhymes with how, and through with you. Six uses of "ough", each pronounced differently.

I am not a good person to ask. I don't actually 'know' most of the rules, I just have a good sense from experience as to what sounds correct.

Your examples. One would say, or write - written English is more formal than spoken:

1. Either "Who are you chatting with?" OR "With whom are you chatting?"
2. "a great cat who was loved" In this sentence the cat is he or she and "if you use he or she, then you use the subject pronoun who".
3. Your sentence is grammatically incorrect and I struggle to see how it can be recast to include either who or whom. Maybe 'The King of Belgium, who was accompanied by his son, arrived in the City of London"?

Who (pronoun)#Usage of whom may, or may not, help.

Possibly one of my more erudite talk page stalkers will come along to help you out. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I know "whom" is probably one of the hardest words with one of the hardest grammatical rules in the English language but probably when I master the rule/word it already would be dated. Because first, no one knows how to use it and second non- or native speakers already use who instead. It's already archaic in English colloquial, so it wouldn't surprise me to see it dying off in the coming decades. But do not worry I will search until I find the answer to master it. BTW the first example was so close just a one-word difference was so close oh well. I'm still young and I learn every day about the English language. Hopefully, you do too? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree - whom is not an important word to get right, the vast majority of English speakers allready never use it. I think that if one is aware of one's inadequacies and immersed in the language, one is bound to improve. Certainly my English has broadened since I have been busy on Wikipedia - the constant feedback helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I finally got it. Yes my suborn never leave me behind but I finally understand the word whom and when to use it. It even makes sense is some sentences. It just took me two full days to try to understand the concept. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Good. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Gog the Mild. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SusunW (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

		El Jefe
		I congratulate you on your elevation to the ruling junta of Milhist. Chetsford (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Now then, is that any way to address a superior officer? The beatings shall continue until morale improves. He, he; seriously, many thanks. I shall endeavour to continue the standards of my illustrious predecessors. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		To be honest, you seem to have accumulated more than enough of these things in the relatively short time that you've been here, but I guess that's what good old hard work will do... Thanks for your diligent reviews of Capture of Wakefield, helping refine that article, and hopefully help me build a blueprint for future related articles. Your advice is sound, but also your willingness to engage and explain your reasoning when required. Mostly, thank you for helping this user, who has a tendency to waffle, to "put it more shortly"! Harrias talk 12:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Harrias: One can never have too much appreciation. I am pleased that you found my input into the article useful. I look forward to seeing it at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day Gog, as you are a newly-minted coord, would you mind verifying my personal tally for Backlog Banzai? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Even my maths can handle that. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It has been a challenge for me, I can tell you... Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Should have asked me. I like playing with numbers. Would you like me to do the placings? Gog the Mild (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting on GELongstreet, who apparently was keeping entries off the page then pasting them in, and still has more to add according to their last edit summary. I've pinged them. I wouldn't mind a hand with handing out the gongs though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm also giving everyone a day or so to repechage my tallying before handing out the gongs, in case I mucked it up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: No problem with handing out the awards. Just point me at the wording; or should I just copy last year's?

I make Vami IV's total 7,231, not 7,021. Do you want to double check? Would you like me to check the others?

I assume that we are doing no quality control on the adequacy of the work, especially the assessing?

Yes, GELongstreet has tagged articles they haven't yet put on the worklist.

It got pretty competitive this year. Clearly got the juices going. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to check and modify my terrible maths. I've done no quality control, as I am AGF on things being done properly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Done. Other than Vami IV I have only changed Penny Richards', as most of their new articles had been assessed as being B class but not noted as such on the worklist. Separately, and between you and me, some of the assessing by some assessors seems so random that I wonder if they have even looked at the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. That's one of the issues with drives, it's impossible to ensure quality due to the volume. I'll let you know when we can start handing out the gongs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

We're on. Could you please hand out the one, two and three stripes, the WikiChevrons and my Barnstar? The templates are in the Military history awards section of the Coords Handbook page except for the Barnstar, for that the template is on the Barnstars page. I'll do the rest. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you still want maps for the articles, as requested here last February? Happy to help if you're interested in me sorting out the request. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amitchell125, that would be wonderful. The article is, IMO, more or less ready for FAC, but for want of a map. I am not sure how clear I was in my original request. The map to the right - File:CapeEcnomus.png - is almost what I would like, but sadly is inaccurate. Possibly you could use it as the base for a revised version - yes. If so, I could list the changes I would like, and/or provide links to more accurate, but copyrighted, maps. Does that make sense? I am about to go to bed, but will now do so with a smile on my face.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The map shown here is here is easy to produce as an svg file, which can be amended in any way you see fit. I'll get back to you. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made an SVG copy of the file (see it here), as a start. Let me know where you want to go with it, and I'll start work on it (even starting from scratch is OK, as it currently looks rather unlike the source it was derived from). Amitchell125 (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: That looks fine. Can we start with just the top sub-map.

1. The Carthaginian navy was in total slightly more numerous that the Roman. I think that the best way to address this is to lengthen the lines representing their wings, to match the length of their centre. (See the Goldsworthy source that you refer to for how they outflanked the Romans.
2. The Carthaginians only had three squadrons, so could you move the "3" to where the "4" is, and scrap the 4.
3. The Roman squadrons were all approximately the same size. So could the line currently labeled III be shrunk to about the same size as I and II.
4. The Romans had four squadrons. So could "III" be replaced by "IV" and a new line be introduced immediately to the left of the horse transports and be labeled III. (At this point this squadron was towing the transports.)
5. Could the legend be changed to "I, II, III, IV Roman squadrons" and "1, 2, 3 Carthaginian squadrons">

Does that all make sense and is it doable?

Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Much appreciated. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am bringing to your notice that, I have nominated the article of "List of international goals scored by Sunil Chhetri", where you also helped me to rescue those citation for the article. Though almost reviewed substatially by editors, but still would like if you leave a comment at my 1st FLC nomination. And also my 2nd FLC nomination, its the "List of highest individual scores in ODIs" where you helped in copyediting and also archived the citations. I will truly appreciate your words in both of these nominations. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Gog the Mild. When you reverted my changes you mentioned that "the countries included in the Balkans region for the purposes of this [Military History Project] task force are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, the Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Moldova, Romania, Slovenia and Turkey.". Just wanted to ask you which criteria apply when deciding whether a military history article belongs to a country's area of interest: the battle site (whether it is currently included within the borders of the respective state or was part of that respective country), the belligerents? Many thanks in advance. Mentatus (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mentatus The situation is not intuitively clear, and I am too close to it. Apologies, I could probably have given a better edit summary. For MilHist purposes, only, an article is tagged as "Balkan" if it has sufficient connection with one of the countries listed, which don't have separate MilHist task forces. So if, for example, Romanian troops were involved, then it would be so tagged. To pick a random example, Romanian armies in the Battle of Stalingrad is so tagged despite Stalingrad being some way from the Balkans. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up. This means that other articles (such as Battle of Kőhalom or Petrozsény Campaign) must be also included in the area of interest of the Balkan task force. Mentatus (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mentatus: Yes please. That would be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

G'day Gog, I have been working through the creation of the map for this chevauchée. Can you review proposed map here and provide any comments. I know that Foix county name and Tarn river identifiers need moving. Are there any additional towns or regions to be shown on the map? I am looking forward to the next work of yours. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Newm30, that looks excellent. I am very happy with it and very appreciative of the work that has gone into it. If "Armagnac" could be moved down and right a little - perhaps to be centred on the River Gors, perhaps just above Mirande - that would be a little more accurate. But that is a minor detail; I am impressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 20,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 3rd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting two long articles during the GOCE September 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 3rd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 11,684 words – during the GOCE September 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the drive, and congrats on your Milhist Coordinatorship. I'll try to review the TFA copyedit situation and see if the GOCE coordinators can take some of that off of your hands. –  Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg and thanks for the bling. Nice to see the backlog at an all-time low. I did a couple myself on the 30th hoping that we might get under 500, but I expect that we will in November. A little help with TFAs would be appreciated. Mostly it is going through FAs which passed more than 8 or 9 years ago, when standards were different. There is rarely very much to do. Those which I think may be problematic I either do myself or put on Requests. The MilHist thing promises to be a steep learning curve and a heap of work, but you would know all about that. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a job for me (finding work for other editors to do). I muddled through some of the talk pages and then watchlisted Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 1, 2019, so hopefully I'll notice when the next batch are ready. Do they usually get queued about a month in advance? I can look at the next batch or split them with you. I just don't want you to suffer burnout, with everything else on top of your new coordinator duties. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I was going to argue, but then thought that indeed, it is a job for the GoCE lead coordinator. But I worry about you burning out. Perhaps we can agree a staged transfer of responsibility to GoCE? I don't really know how the TFA process works behind the scenes; my liaison is Dank. He seems to feel that I do a competent job, so given that you taught me three quarters of what I know about copy editing for Wikipedia I imagine that he will approve of your work too.

I do not fully read every article – I triage out the more recent FACs, especially ones which I have personally read or commented on while they were at FAC (or earlier); FAs by frequent FA nominators which have been maintained or have received few edits since FAC; FACs from the past five or six years where the combined edit history since promotion shows few changes, and those mostly improvements. Any which will be obviously popular among the more "drive-by" of editors - India, Hillary Clinton, Taylor Swift, to take some recent examples - I either give the full treatment myself or post on Requests. This usually leaves a bulky residue for a more detailed look. I don't worry about trying to bring every TFA from 10 or 12 years ago up to what would currently be considered an acceptable level of prose and MoS-compliance – I rather try to remove any more obvious "errors". To a large extent this applies to all TFAs, but if more eyes were available, perhaps more could be done in this respect. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

That all sounds right. Two or three people looking at them would be great ... 10 or 20 would not. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dank: It'll probably end up being two or three doing the checking, and possibly passing individual articles to others if substantial work is needed. We currently have five GOCE coordinators (including myself as lead), plus a number of other helpful volunteers such as our esteemed Gog. After I read up a bit more, I'll poll them about taking over this task and ping you in on the discussion. I expect to be busy toward the end of this month, for example, and I don't feel that I can commit myself to checking all of them in a timely manner. We'll find a way to split up the articles; more hands make lighter work.

Thanks for offering, and thanks in advance for the ping. - Dank (push to talk) 10:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I wouldn't take it all on, and have honestly been feeling guilty that you got stuck with it. I'll find some way to share the work at GOCE. I've been prepping my annual work for WP:CAN10K and am hoping to contribute to a Women in Red stubathon, so trying to schedule these around the hard deadlines. Since you've checked October, we should have some time to figure things out. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

If you search "Iran six day war", you see there are not so many sources about this. So I don't think this is possible to find a RS. However, this article (in Persian) only says "Iran provided oil for Israel during Arab-Israeli wars." I know Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but this article says: "During the 1967 Six-Day War, Iran supplied Israel with essential oil and petroleum."

Hi... Could you please so kind to participate in request for comment on Template talk:Infobox military unit. Thanks.(Ckfasdf (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC))

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This article is too long, need to omit some unnecessary paragraphs, help summarize this article (and copy edit). Thanks you. Olascf (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Olascf: It may well be, why are you sharing this with me? Can I suggest posting your request at GoCE? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes.Olascf (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Olascf: For clarity, I mean that if you post your request at GoCE it is likely that one of their editors will be able to help you. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

But it takes time. Olascf (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We're volunteers. We do this for fun. You just have to wait. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog, a couple of questions if you have a minute pls:

@JennyOz:

• Aftermath "In early 1346 two English forces..." - is 1346 the right year?

Doh! No. Should be 1347. Thanks.

• Black Rood, I was going to link it to Black Rood of Scotland but that redirects to Holyrood dab page. The redirect was done back in Nov 2009. I think the redirect should change to Holyrood (cross), which was created Dec 2009. It already has a bold "Black Rood of Scotland" and section. What you think?

Yes, it's Holyrood (cross). And I don't think that it should be in italics.

Regards, JennyOz (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this Jenny. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks, tweaks now done, JennyOz (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I hope you are having a wonderful week so far. Thank you for your input at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deactivators/archive3. I must admit that I have a lot to learn about becoming a better reviewer, and I find it helpful to see how other editors respond to different types of review. If you have the time or interest, I was wondering if you could do a cursory glace through the Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King article. I am interested in putting it up for an FAC sometime in the future, but I am unfamiliar with video game articles. I thought asking for second opinions would be beneficial to avoid nominating something that is potentially unprepared for the FAC space . Apologies for the complete randomness of the request. Aoba47 (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47. I have no experience of reviewing video game articles whatsoever. This is the first I have ever so much as read. Given your illustrious history with FAs I am not sure what I can offer. That said, I would be happy to go through article, posting any suggestions to the talk page and copy editing as required. I'll get round to this over the next day or two, unless you ask me not to; if you do, I won't be the slightest offended. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response! Upon further reflection, I think it would be better to wait as I am currently on a wikibreak to focus on more off-Wikipedia activities and I am trying to limit my time on here lol. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

More information Views/Day, Quality ...

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
8		Rancagua conurbation (talk)	Add sources
6		Greater Iquique (talk)	Add sources
2,058		Karate (talk)	Add sources
422		Philip VI of France (talk)	Add sources
1,350		Frankfurt Airport (talk)	Add sources
13		Greater La Serena (talk)	Add sources
729		Mexico City International Airport (talk)	Cleanup
140		Manizales (talk)	Cleanup
6		Bando Osmeña – Pundok Kauswagan (talk)	Cleanup
4		Madoka Kitao (talk)	Expand
149		Cúcuta (talk)	Expand
3		Jacqueline de Bueil (talk)	Expand
594		English longbow (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
160		Sinodonty and Sundadonty (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
304		Football in India (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
542		Internet addiction disorder (talk)	Merge
137		Computer addiction (talk)	Merge
17		Electronic media and sleep (talk)	Merge
12		Battle of Mauron (talk)	Wikify
31		Galley tactics (talk)	Wikify
180		Tiger-class cruiser (talk)	Wikify
18		Hugo Aguilar (talk)	Orphan
3		Zindagi Rocks (talk)	Orphan
39		Ewa Kurek (talk)	Orphan
20		Sergio Castel (talk)	Stub
7		Chillán conurbation (talk)	Stub
151		Calcutta Football League (talk)	Stub
78		Challenge (2009 film) (talk)	Stub
276		Jalfrezi (talk)	Stub
9		Greater Temuco (talk)	Stub

Close

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

More information Views/Day, Quality ...

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
26		Counter-recruitment (talk)	Add sources
441		Cataphract (talk)	Add sources
545		History of the firearm (talk)	Add sources
69		Saturation attack (talk)	Add sources
448		War elephant (talk)	Add sources
87		Desert warfare (talk)	Add sources
260		Early modern warfare (talk)	Cleanup
223		Heavy cavalry (talk)	Cleanup
247		Principles of war (talk)	Cleanup
299		History of weapons (talk)	Expand
173		Jungle warfare (talk)	Expand
684		Spear (talk)	Expand
156		Cavalry tactics (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
249		Space warfare (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
62		Gothic and Vandal warfare (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
155		Science studies (talk)	Merge
263		Roman–Persian Wars (talk)	Merge
30		Christianization of the Rus' Khaganate (talk)	Merge
334		Modern warfare (talk)	Wikify
15		Military history of Ireland (talk)	Wikify
679		Proxy war (talk)	Wikify
2		Bachar Village (talk)	Orphan
3		Amatori Alghero (talk)	Orphan
4		Asma Khalifa (talk)	Orphan
51		Underwater warfare (talk)	Stub
44		Military specialism (talk)	Stub
58		Tactical objective (talk)	Stub
88		Military theory (talk)	Stub
56		Operational manoeuvre group (talk)	Stub
76		Cover (military) (talk)	Stub

Close

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

More information Views/Day, Quality ...

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
160		Defeat in detail (talk)	Add sources
121		Endemic warfare (talk)	Add sources
145		Military history of China before 1911 (talk)	Add sources
126		Infantry tactics (talk)	Add sources
794		Cavalry (talk)	Add sources
320		Fabian strategy (talk)	Add sources
209		Mountain warfare (talk)	Cleanup
302		Grand strategy (talk)	Cleanup
28		Military history of Hungary (talk)	Cleanup
598		Weapon (talk)	Expand
135		Outline of social science (talk)	Expand
105		Cyberweapon (talk)	Expand
6		Military history of Nepal (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
30		Close order formation (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
106		Battle of annihilation (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
94		Fall of the Sasanian Empire (talk)	Merge
65		Nationalist historiography (talk)	Merge
103		Byzantine–Sasanian wars (talk)	Merge
5		Military history of Chad (talk)	Wikify
251		Rural sociology (talk)	Wikify
125		First Empire of Haiti (talk)	Wikify
7		Accidental Adversaries (talk)	Orphan
1		Andrei Smorkalov (talk)	Orphan
3		Alphamay (talk)	Orphan
77		Counter-offensive (talk)	Stub
6		Military history of the United Arab Emirates (talk)	Stub
26		Kepoi (talk)	Stub
254		Private law (talk)	Stub
8		Military history of Syria (talk)	Stub
40		Phasis (town) (talk)	Stub

Close

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit The Bot has been complaining about it all weekend and I had just gotten around to looking for the problem when you found it for, Thx. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Why Hawkeye7, thank you. I didn't know you cared. There seemed to be a similar issue with Talk:Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana, fixed by this. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with that one, but I'll run a test to be sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: They both showed up in "Need project tag fixed" and they both went away after I made the identical rearrangement of the order of "A Class=current" and "Class=GA". So I would have expected them both to cause the bot a similar issue. (Or both to cause none. One irritating the bot and one not seems odd.) Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There was a newline after the pipe. This is valid, but the Bot thought there was no parameter there, so it couldn't find the A-Class parameter. I made a small change to tell it that this is valid, and it will accept this form now. What you did to fix my problem was remove the newline. This saved me from having to figure out what was wrong. The Bot can process the original now, sop the problem will not recur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks Hawkeye, and happy that I was able to help. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog, I hope all is well. You were kind enough to provide some comments at the Baker Street robbery PR; this has now moved on to FAC. If you have sufficient time or inclination, I'd be most grateful to hear any further comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

On it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Gog, you've got this at WP:TFAP for October 2020. Ealdgyth has this on her tentative list for next month ... does that work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dank: That works fine, thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I made it so. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well done, reverting all the mischief, by our anonymous, IP-hopping, citevar troll. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

User:IWannaBeTheVeryWorst is persistently vandalizing pages. Could you please block him, and maybe perform an IP check?

(Sorry if you're not the one to contact for this, I'm new here. I just know you're an admin.)

Thanks. Aven13 —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aven13, I'm not an administrator, so I can't block users. The page to notify vandalism on is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I suspect that another warning or two on their talk page will be needed first. I will try to keep an eye on them, but if you notice them vandalising again, could you let me know. And thanks a lot for flagging up the issue rather than just letting it go. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

1. Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
3. Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
4. Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
5. SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
6. Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
7. Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
8. HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points