Jump to content

User talk:Gog the Mild

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a WikiGnome.
Trout this user
This user is a coordinator of the Military History WikiProject
Editor of the Week, 22 June 2019
This user won the Four Award with the "{{{article_name}}}" article.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FACs needing feedback
view • edit
Dan Fouts Review it now
Kim Kitsuragi Review it now
Marching Through Georgia Review it now


Welcome to the 2025 WikiCup!

[edit]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Durrell

[edit]

Gog, I just happened to notice that Gerald Durrell's birthday is 7 January 1925. I don't usually care about TFA, and I know this is very late notice, but a 100-year anniversary is fairly unusual so I thought I'd mention it in case you think it's worth switching out the currently scheduled TFA for that date. I seem to recall it's quite a lot of work to switch out TFAs so no worries if this can't be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, SchroCat is scheduling January. I would have thought the notice a little tight, but let's see what SC says. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-SchroCat comment) but ironically it's his own FAC that day  :) but as suggested, a centennial doesn't come around very often. I might propose that the PSR article get moved from 7 January (the date of their arrests) to maybe (example) 22 March, the date they were found guilty and sentenced at trial, which is currently vacant. Squares the circle really. /Now pipes down. SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell 19:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, No problems with swapping it, and I’ll sort in the morning. Are you able to sort the blurb, or do you want me to do it? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm traveling at the moment and have intermittent online time, but I do have time at the moment to give it a shot. I'll leave a draft on your talk if I can't find the right place to put it, but by all means change it as much as you want. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Good article reassessment for Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho

[edit]

Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Preston (1648)

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Preston (1648) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion required

[edit]

Hi @Gog the Mild, I was wondering if I could gather you opinion on William Martin, 1st Baron Martin. An editor added a Main articles heading with list of main articles relating to this person. I left them a message saying this should be a see also heading and just dot points with links to the articles not using the main article template for each listing. I also removed those links within the article itself. Am I correct in this situation or barked up the wrong tree? Regards Newm30 (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also are succession tables supposed to be in the lower part of the article for general viewing or as the editor has done place in a section which you wouldn't see unless opening that section? Regards Newm30 (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gog and Newm30, I've been dealing with the disruption from this editor for the last month. I've started work on a case at ANI. It's not just this sort of thing at William Martin, it's all over. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth, it's good to know that you are on top of this. Newm30, the MoS, in MOS:NAVLAYOUT, states that navboxes, "such as succession boxes", go at the very bottom of articles. As, for example, in "my" FA Constantine III (Western Roman emperor).
Links to other articles. You are correct and Pipera is acting in good faith but is mistaken. MOS:ALSO says

"A "See also" section is a useful way to organize internal links to related or comparable articles and build the web. However, the section itself is not required; many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one. The section should be a bulleted list ... Contents: Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense."

Personally I almost never have See also's in my FAs or GAs.
Does this help? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to respond, articles here are rolled back, and no discussion added, in this case of William Martin, 1st Baron Martin
From my talk page:
William Martin, 1st Baron Martin
They are main articles. Pipera (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply][reply]
I have referred to an administrator for review and advice. Regards Newm30 (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply][reply]
Template:Main - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Main
== Examples ==
Underscores (_) between words are not necessary
Pipera (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Empire&action=edit&section=16
See also: Roman emperor and Senate of the Roman Empire as an example.
They were going to reverse anything I placed there anyway regardless of what I said on the talk page, Pipera (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gog the Mild. That's what I suspected and thanks for the clarification. Yes I agree the editor is acting in good faith and needs some assistance. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to this matter, I have been rolled back, had sources removed that support what I have said, have stated why the article needs to be resolved at Talk:Sibyl of Falaise - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sibyl_of_Falaise#Article_Concerns! and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sibyl_of_Falaise#Vague_history_of_Sybil_being_the_Niece_of_Henry_I_of_England. Please respond to this. Pipera (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also are succession tables supposed to be in the lower part of the article for general viewing or as the editor has done place in a section which you wouldn't see unless opening that section? Regards Newm30 (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply][reply]
That has been fixed.
Pipera (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have spoken to you on my talk page, you were going to reverse it anyway. So why ask me when you were going to do it, I realize you have started the article, but at Wikipedia articles need to have a balanced input, I added my input.
Further the Martin fitz Martin lineage from him ceased to exist and this peerage became extinct. How do I know this I have been researching the Martin and fitz Martin lineage as I am a descendant of Joan Martin his daughter. So, I have an understanding of this tree from a Genealogical Researchers perspective. Pipera (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pipera I did not start the article. I had not seen it until Newm30 mentioned it in this thread. You have no idea what if anything I intend to do. Please stop spamming my user page with irrelevant information; if you wish to post about a specific article, please do so on its talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to Newm30 (talk not you here as they raised the issue here. Pipera (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then the etiquette is to ping them at the start of the message - in case they are not watchlisting the page and so everyone knows who you are addressing.Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 66

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024

  • Les Jours and East View Press join the library
  • Tech tip: Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --17:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Battle of Morlaix

[edit]
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Battle of Morlaix, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preston

[edit]

I've passed this one for GA - just last item. It's noted that the New Model Army was an exceptional combat unit - do the RS have a consensus as to the quality of the militia? With the place and time frame that I normally work with, the militia was almost always of such poor quality as to be barely usable. Hog Farm Talk 22:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Got you. After four years of civil war most of the militia was decent, some very good. I'll rootle around in the sourcing and see if anyone comes out and says that straight. Thanks for the swift service HF and let me know when I can return the favour. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A very reliable source says the militia were as good as the regulars once the fighting started, which is startlingly high praise. I have tweaked the text to say this. Good spot. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you have the opportunity to look over George B. Crittenden (which is at GAN) with pre-FAC in mind (this is not a request for QPQ reviewing)? I'm hoping to get the ball rolling on that sooner rather than later, before Eubank has to go back to the library next month. Hog Farm Talk 05:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Preston (1648)

[edit]

The article Battle of Preston (1648) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Preston (1648) for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of Preston (1648)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

[edit]
 Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 9 reviews between October and December 2024. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The Bugle: Issue 225, January 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356)

[edit]
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Edward III's Breton campaign, 1342–1343

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Edward III's Breton campaign, 1342–1343 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Edward III's Breton campaign, 1342–1343

[edit]

The article Edward III's Breton campaign, 1342–1343 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edward III's Breton campaign, 1342–1343 for comments about the article, and Talk:Edward III's Breton campaign, 1342–1343/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query on Reliable Sources - help!

[edit]

I'm having a "discussion" with another editor, one of the issues being the rejection of what I consider reliable sources ie published books you can buy on Amazon.

These have been rejected on the grounds that although factual biographies, they cannot be considered reliable because the author "is not an historian". That seems (a) highly subjective, and (b) absurd (we could reject Churchill's History of WWII on the same grounds). I can't find this criteria listed anywhere although the editor insists it is Wikipedia policy.

I want to make sure I'm clear - do you have any insights? Thanks in advance. Robinvp11 (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robinvp11. If an editor says something is policy they need to be able to state which policy and quote the words, or it is their opinion, not policy. The other editor may be getting confused with self-published works. I think WP:RS is what your debate is over. WP:SOURCEDEF states "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." I assume your source meets at least one of these? Most established publishers of historical works would meet the first part of this requirement. There is certainly no requirement that the author of an RS be an "historian", however that is defined; not even always at FAC, much less for a general article. If your interlocutor can quote a policy which contradicts this could you please pass it on to me? Thanks. Does this address your query? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks - I've seen this argument deployed previously, and its usually because the individual doesn't like the answer. I just wanted to check I wasn't missing anything. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has now tagged my Sourced additions with a maintenance tag saying Unreliable source - this was published in the 19th century and the author is not a historian.
I have asked for the relevant guidelines they are using - they don't have them, and since this discussion has become somewhat personal, I'm not sure how to address resolving this.
The easiest way seems to be submitting the article for peer review by the Military History group, but at the moment the other editor is simply reversing my edits, so its hard to complete it.
I have also suggested getting other editors to weigh in on the TP - would you be willing to comment if invited? Or is there an expert on this topic I could ask for a ruling? Thanks! Robinvp11 (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting a wider range of input is a good way to go. Obviously invite in a neutral manner and avoid any suggestion of hand picking who you invite. You haven't told me what the article is, but at a guess a neutral post at MilHist would do. If I wanted an as near to definitive opinion as one is likely to get on Wikipedia on something like this, I would very politely ask Nikkimaria a very precise and narrow question. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - hard to comment on specifics without knowing the source and context. In general not every published book on Amazon is reliable, but not every older or "not a historian" source is unreliable either. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
For Talk:George B. Crittenden/GA1. My writing just needs a lot more help than most people's, and I appreciate those who will help me with that. I recently had to admit at an A-Class review that I just guess most of the time for comma placement. Teaching writing just isn't that important in my homeland of rural Missouri. Hog Farm Talk 21:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, you are not the only one. Take a look at the assistance I'm getting from Tim and UC on my most recent FAC. Or look at this for a GAN review with heft. I greatly admire those who can roll out an oven-ready article, but most of us are here because Wikipedia is crowd sourced and we can cover each other's relative weaknesses. And it is notoriously difficult to proofread your own work. That said, many thanks for the gesture of appreciation. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gog_the_Mild&oldid=1272936121"