Jump to content

User talk:Ealdgyth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:4455:602:b200:3cfe:c861:16b5:db35 (talk) at 11:06, 27 April 2022 (→‎Rewriting the Holocaust article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

FACs needing feedback
view • edit
Weise's law Review it now


Featured article removal candidates
Sideshow Bob Review now
The Supremes Review now
0.999... Review now
Battle of Red Cliffs Review now
Mariah Carey Review now
Pokémon Channel Review now
Concerto delle donne Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask Review now
Geography of Ireland Review now
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.



Rhys ap Gruffydd

Ealdgyth, there are three map images at Rhys ap Gruffydd. The first is sourced, and it's likely the next two came from the same source. Are you able to cite them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They do not come from the next source - Walker only has three maps, and the second and third of his maps cover the Edwardian conquest of Wales in the 13th century. I've updated the caption on the first map in our article to reflect what it actually does source. Let me keep digging... Ealdgyth (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got nothing that can source those last two maps... I'm not saying that they look wrong but I don't have the sources for it. Still about half my books packed up so ... heh. Although I did look in most of what I have on Wales and it didn't have anything ... but my Welsh books are pretty sparse. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who upload those files (back when we were young women :) did not source them. The article has been deemed "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020A. Should I comment out those maps, or are they not a big deal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't sweat it too much. They don't really ADD that much either, so if you feel better commenting out, it won't hurt the article. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Philip de Thaun

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Philip de Thaun 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a few minor comments and quibbles for your consideration. Tim riley talk 18:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Philip de Thaun

The article Philip de Thaun you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Philip de Thaun for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All satisfactorily attended to. In the list of GAs I've put him under "Thaun, Philip de", but if you think he should be "de Thaun, Philip" please move him. (I know no rule for indexing "de" French names, e.g. it is definitely "de Gaulle, Charles", but "Montaigne, Michel de". I think it's because one always refers to the former as "de Gaulle" but to the latter generally just as "Montaigne", and I leave it to you to say which is appropriate for Philip.) Tim riley talk 07:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested re Draft:Ascelin de Waterville

Hi Ealdgyth -- I realise this is sledgehammer–nut territory, but if you had a moment could you try to assist Buddicca, a historically inclined newbie who is trying to write about Draft:Ascelin de Waterville, an Anglo-Norman landholder, and has got an off-putting decline at Articles for Creation. I've given them some generic advice but don't edit much in this area. Many thanks for any specific advice you can offer them. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest issue is that it's a copyright violation - the article is substantially copied from The Victoria County History of Northamton vol 3. Another issue is that the article is unclear who it is about. The Domesday tenant of 1086 is in Domesday People as "Azelin de Walterville" (p. 159) (Azelin is a Latinization of Ascelin), and there is no mention of a possiblity of there being two with that name (this is why the VCH is not the best source ... better to base on more recent scholarship and then flesh out with VCH). Azelin was NOT a tenant-in-chief, nor was he a baron (not in Sanders Feudal Baronies). He's mentioned in Domesday but that's not enough to make him notable by our standards. He was steward to the Abbey of Peterborough and had four sons. There was another Ascelin who held land in Lincolnshire in 1166 (the Cartae Baronum), but the connection to the Domesday tenant is unclear. The CB Ascelin MIGHT be notable, but it's iffy. Unless there is more lurking about ... I'm going to have to say this is likely a minor landholding family that doesn't rise to enough notablity for our purposes. A quick look at the bios of the relevant kings (William I, William II, Henry I, Henry II) shows no mentions of either Ascelin. Nor is either Ascelin mentioned in the "go-tos" for obscure nobility for the Anglo-Norman period - English Sheriffs to 1154, The Anglo-Norman Nobility in the Reign of Henry I, or The Aristocracy of Norman England. Because of the stewardship to Peterborough, I checked Knowles' The Monastic Order in England and nothing. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, thanks for this detailed analysis! I've tended to assume the Victoria County History volumes were out of copyright now, but I see the BHO licence precludes re-publication without permission. I'll try to convey the probable lack of notability to Buddicca without damping their enthusiasm. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nigel Fossard

On 13 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nigel Fossard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nigel Fossard did not mention his wife's name in a charter, but did mention the name of the king and queen of England? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nigel Fossard. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nigel Fossard), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cedar Creek

Thank you for reviewing Battle of Cedar Creek. I will try to get to it later today or tomorrow. I may need more of your opinion on some things. For example, when reading about the battle, I wondered why Sheridan (arrived at 10:30) took so long to counterattack (nearly 4:00 pm). That was the reason for blue box under "Early's fatal halt". Perhaps there is a better way to handle it, such as moving it to under "Union counterattack". I have no problem dropping "fatal" from "Early's fatal halt. However, the term "fatal halt" came from Gordon, and historians such as Wert and Bohannon use the term "fatal halt". Otherwise, cool that you have famous Civil War relatives. I am a direct descendant from a simple cavalry bugler. TwoScars (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are "cousins" (and distant ones at that) rather than descents. The descents are much much less impressive - mostly privates, one home guard older guy, and a runaway child who wanted to be a drummer boy but never even made it to the recruiting station... heh. Take your time - it's an important article and I am not going to fail it if you are working on it even if it takes more than 7 days. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your work on Battle of Cedar Creek. I learned some things, and will try cut way back on using the Official Record. Right now, I am working on a small battle with very little written about it, so I am forced to rely on old sources and the Official Record, but in future endeavors I will try to be more current. Also watching the length of articles. TwoScars (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And to some degree ... length is a editorial judgement. Some folks like a lot of background, some folks think lean-and-mean is best. It's always a balancing act! Ealdgyth (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of General Duke (horse)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article General Duke (horse) 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of General Duke (horse)

The article General Duke (horse) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:General Duke (horse) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of General Duke (horse)

The article General Duke (horse) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:General Duke (horse) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter de Maulay

If you'd still like a pre-FAC review of Peter de Maulay, I should have time to take a look in the next week or so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Take your time, I'm not in any hurry. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
17 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start 994 (talk) Add sources
194 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Via Francigena (talk) Add sources
2,703 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Edmund Ironside (talk) Add sources
181 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C South Carolina Declaration of Secession (talk) Add sources
263 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Occupation of Constantinople (talk) Add sources
7 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Thomas Duffus Hardy (talk) Add sources
9 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Ælfric Puttoc (talk) Cleanup
43 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Vermont in the American Civil War (talk) Cleanup
71 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Amratian culture (talk) Cleanup
133 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Glossary of archaeology (talk) Expand
333 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Kanem–Bornu Empire (talk) Expand
15 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Outline of ancient history (talk) Expand
90 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Ethnic violence (talk) Unencyclopaedic
10 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Walter Devereux (born 1173) (talk) Unencyclopaedic
260 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Late modern period (talk) Unencyclopaedic
26 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Pagan Federation (talk) Merge
32 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Tuwana (talk) Merge
161 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Hindu Shahis (talk) Merge
329 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B History of Mesopotamia (talk) Wikify
403 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Downy woodpecker (talk) Wikify
15 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Neopaganism in Minnesota (talk) Wikify
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Alexander Zozulya (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Amy Catanzano (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Abby Robinson (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Scottish Chieftain (horse) (talk) Stub
12 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Ælfsige (talk) Stub
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Cyneweard of Glastonbury (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Ealdred (bishop of Cornwall) (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Ælfwold II (bishop of Crediton) (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Peace Chance (talk) Stub

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Roger de Valognes

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roger de Valognes 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Roger de Valognes

The article Roger de Valognes you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Roger de Valognes for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Roger de Valognes

The article Roger de Valognes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roger de Valognes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages and FAR

I am hoping there is just a misunderstanding, but could you provide any feedback at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Thoughts about non-FAR rewrites? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not having clued in to the extent of the situation at Middle Ages and how that must feel for you and Johnbod, as I selfishly focused only on the URFA/FAR issue re other articles, while packing to leave for the wedding ... I failed to do my homework and pay attention to what you were saying. I'm so sorry to see when something like that happens, and am wondering if I could have/would have responded any differently than you ... by walking away. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to see these

[1] and [2] as you have edited Horse. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, joys. I love how the caveats and quibbles somehow don't transfer to the actual wikipedia edit... Ealdgyth (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I thought you might like that. Typical of someone trying to push something. Easier to deal with though than ones I’ve been struggling with in articles about Egyptian DNA and populations. I can’t find any commentary on the new dates. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better you than me on Talk:Population history of Egypt... I looked at it and went "Ugh, I'm LOST!" Ealdgyth (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Although this gives you a better view of the issues perhaps. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting the Holocaust article

Hi Ealdgyth, I was thinking about doing a total rewrite of this article like I did with the Armenian genocide one. Pretty much the entire Holocaust article could stand to be rewritten based on newer and/or better sources. To ensure balanced coverage, I was planning to base the article on well regarded books that give an overview of the topic, such as the following:

  • Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Longerich, 2010)
  • Histories of the Holocaust (Stone, 2010)
  • Why?: Explaining the Holocaust (Hayes, 2017)
  • Germany's War and the Holocaust (Bartov, 2013)
  • The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies (2012)
  • A Companion to the Holocaust (2020)

Since I don't enjoy arguing over every edit, I would plan on drafting the new version of the article in my userspace and then replacing the current article when I'm done with the rewrite. Furthermore, since article topic is based on a definable subject not a term, the article's topic would be "genocide of Jews during World War II" as opposed to "all mass killings by Nazi Germany" (a worthy but distinct article topic, covered collectively in a recent book). I think this distinction would be better served by a hatnote than the current article structure. Does this seem like a workable plan to you? (t · c) buidhe 05:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck. I think you’ll get a lot of pushback, especially changing the focus. We already see a lot of discussion about its scope, and it’ll get worse I suspect if you change it, or try to eliminate everyone’s pet theories…I cleaned it up back a few years ago …it was once a lot worse. But all that got me was grief, so I’ve not pushed further.h I strongly suggest bringing this up on the talk page rather than springing it on folks. Ealdgyth (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rewriting Nazi concentration camps is more safe and without edit warring. 2001:4455:602:B200:3CFE:C861:16B5:DB35 (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ealdgyth&oldid=1084926637"