User talk:Cplakidas/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Your GA nomination of Hamdan Qarmat

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hamdan Qarmat 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 Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Greek Volunteer Legion

On 3 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Greek Volunteer Legion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Greek Volunteer Legion (pictured) fought on the side of Russia during the Crimean War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Greek Volunteer Legion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Greek Volunteer Legion), 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) 00:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Basil II

Hi Cplakidas, I was fixing some harv ref errors on Basil II. You wouldn't happen to know what book "Brooke 1968, p. 252" (ref 66) refers to would you? That's the last issue in the article and the appropriate source is not in the bibliography. Best, Aza24 (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aza24, I believe it is a reference to the Cambridge Medieval History ([1]). The reference is of course totally wrong, the chapter author is William Stevenson. I had included the correct reference in the article when I wrote the chapter on the campaigns against the Fatimids, but sometime during the great messing-around in the article of the previous two years, it vanished. Here is the correct reference:

* {{cite book |last=Stevenson |first=William B. |title=The Cambridge Medieval History: Contest of Empire and Papacy |volume=V |url=https://archive.org/details/cambridgemedieva05buryuoft |editor-last=Bury |editor-first=John Bagnell |location=New York |publisher=The Macmillan Company |year=1926 |chapter=Chapter VI. Islam in Syria and Egypt (750–1100) |pages=242–264}}

Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hamdan Qarmat

The article Hamdan Qarmat 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:Hamdan Qarmat for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 5 reviews between July and September 2020. Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your GA nomination of Hamdan Qarmat

The article Hamdan Qarmat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hamdan Qarmat 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 Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

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) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Komnenos (governor of Dyrrhachium)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Komnenos (governor of Dyrrhachium) 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Abbasid Governor

Hi Cplakidas. I've added the last missing governor of Egypt of the Abbasid period:Draft:Wadih al-Maskin I wonder if you could spare 5 minutes to review it. Thanks in advance. S713 (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi S713, done. Thanks for creating this article. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. So quick too ! S713 (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Komnenos (governor of Dyrrhachium)

The article John Komnenos (governor of Dyrrhachium) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Komnenos (governor of Dyrrhachium) 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manuel Komnenos (kouropalates)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Manuel Komnenos (kouropalates) 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ali ibn al-Fadl al-Jayshani

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ali ibn al-Fadl al-Jayshani 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manuel Komnenos (kouropalates)

The article Manuel Komnenos (kouropalates) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Manuel Komnenos (kouropalates) 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Widescale accusations against me

Thanks for your overall contribution Constantine. It appears that Maleschreiber was not satisfied with the developments in Zagori so with the first opportunity he launched a barrage of accusations against me [[2]]. It's sad that some editors present a completely wrong picture of the events.Alexikoua (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Pretenders to the Byzantine throne

I'm planning on reworking the Pretenders to the Byzantine throne article a bit, with more sources and perhaps somewhat of a change in structure. I wanted to ask for your input in regards to the title of the article since I'm questioning it a bit myself. "Pretenders to the Byzantine throne" seems to suggest that all the people in the article claimed the position of emperor, but only a very small number of them did, with some claiming various other titles and others simply claiming a family connection (implying that they are the "rightful heirs" but not explicitly proclaiming themselves as such). I'm not sure if there are better options in regards to a title for this topic. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ichthyovenator! Hmmm, that's a tough one. "Pretenders to the Byzantine imperial inheritance" or "Pretenders to Imperial Byzantine descent" might work for the scope, but they are clumsy titles. Perhaps "Claims of Imperial Byzantine descent after 1453"? Constantine ✍ 17:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I think "Claims to/of Imperial Byzantine descent after 1453" or just "claims to/of Imperial Byzantine descent" works significantly better, but I'm not sure if that covers stuff like the Ottoman claim to not only succeed the Byzantine Empire but to in effect be the Byzantine Empire (Mehmed assuming the title Kayser-i Rûm, Suleiman I using the title "Emperor of Constantinople" at one point, the repeated refusal to recognise the HRE) or those who actually were of Imperial Byzantine descent (Andreas Palaiologos). I'll see if I come up with more ideas as I work on the article. :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: The Ottomans did not only claim the political succession (which is disputable in terms of how "Roman" they were, but they certainly had a good claim to it) but also claimed (or rather, Mehmed II encouraged rumours to that effect) descent from John Tzelepes Komnenos. Constantine ✍ 18:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

True! "Claims of Imperial Byzantine descent" it will be, then. Maybe "after 1453" makes it a bit overly convulated of a title. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: That was just to differentiate from pretenders while the Empire was in existence. I think we can safely discard it. Constantine ✍ 08:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manuel Komnenos (son of Andronikos I)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Manuel Komnenos (son of Andronikos I) 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for article expansion support

Hello and Greetings,

Recently I have updated en:Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları (regarding Women's slave markets in Pre 20th century Ottoman empire; this is being updated as part of women and conflict zones related articles on English Wikipedia. I am looking for further expansion and update to the article from Non English language sources like Greek language.

Since earlier you seems to have made some edits to Umm walad please do visit en:Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları and help support expansion and update of the article, if you feel interested about.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ali ibn al-Fadl al-Jayshani

The article Ali ibn al-Fadl al-Jayshani you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ali ibn al-Fadl al-Jayshani 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

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) 15:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manuel Komnenos (son of Andronikos I)

The article Manuel Komnenos (son of Andronikos I) 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:Manuel Komnenos (son of Andronikos I) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manuel Komnenos (son of Andronikos I)

The article Manuel Komnenos (son of Andronikos I) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Manuel Komnenos (son of Andronikos I) 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

• New partnership: Taxmann
• WikiCite
• 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Byzantine banner and Greek cross in articles about the empire

Hi there, you wrote "not representative, not even necessarily authentic as the Madrid copy of the manuscript was done later" but this is certainly not true because the manuscript is from the 12th century, which is exactly the time of reign of the Angelos dynasty, not "was done later" as you wrote. Rather, you should prove whether the Chi Rho (or labarum) which was used in antiquity, was also used later, otherwise it should not be there. Why is it there? I didn't notice any information that the Byzantine Empire used Chi Rho during the High Middle Ages, but I have seen some mention of the occasional use of the Greek cross including military standards which are displayed in the manuscript of John Skylitzes. But nowhere is there any mention or picture of the Chi Rho of the labarum. I am convinced that my banner reconstruction represents the medieval Byzantine Empire better and more appropriately than the Chi Rho of antiquity which it's use isn't proven by anything. The same or similar reconstruction of the flag is used in illustrations in some history books. I am aware that it is not a state or representative flag, so therefore, an extensive description was used there. For some flags or banners of other countries, much less was enough for use in the infobox. At the same time, it dispels the myth that the Byzantine Empire used a double-headed eagle throughout history, so they are useful there. -- Dragovit (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dragovit. The Madrid Skylitzes is an invaluable resource, but it should be used with caution: it was illustrated in Sicily, not the Byzantine Empire, and although it was probably done on the basis of a Byzantine original, we simply don't know how accurate its depictions are. Moreover, it is anachronistic by its very nature: the scene illustrated for the banner in question took place in the 9th century. So while it may reflect an actual 12th-century flag, it may also be a 9th-century one, or it may be a 12th-century illustrator's attempt at illustrating a 9th-century flag, or it may be completely artistic license. What is more, as you say, there is absolutely zero indication that any one of these banners, even if they are accurate, was in any form an 'official' flag representative of the Byzantine Empire, rather than a generic military banner.

As such, any depiction found there may be useful as illustration for our articles, but anything else needs to be highly contextualized, to a degree that is not appropriate for an infobox. Infoboxes are for simple, straightfoward data, not for providing nuance. Osprey illustrations should also be taken with a degree of caution; they are indicative of the general 'look and feel' according to current knowledge, but not representative in any way. To put it another way, regardless how many caveats and footnotes you provide, I guarantee you that most readers will come to see this as a 'state flag' of the Angelos emperors, and it is as such that it will start to be reused in other versions of Wikipedia. On the labarum, I agree that it is not ideal; but because it is not a flag, but a symbol that is clearly a stand-in, it has less capacity to confuse. And if we use this for the late antique empire, we should use it throughout, until we come to the period when there actually was an imperial flag to speak of. Otherwise you have, at some point, a transition between the labarum and the Greek cross, which is open to misinterpretation (for that matter, what is the criterion for the change? do we have a dynastic cut-off point? which? why this and not another one? how authentic and representative are Madrid Skylitzes' cross flags for the 9th century? etc. etc. It opens a can of worms we really don't need).

I am fully aware it is less then ideal; I've been fighting for years to remove inaccurate 'Byzantine flags' from Wikipedia. My personal preference would be to get rid of the labarum as well, but Wikipedians are enamoured of their flag icons, and having the labarum at least prevents them from adding the various other, vastly inaccurate flags that circulate (cf. Category:Fictional or conjectural flags of the Byzantine Empire) and serves its purpose of providing a sense of continuous 'identity' to the Byzantine state, from the Theodosian dynasty to the Palaiologoi. Constantine ✍ 14:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with you in most things, but I prefer a different strategy. I also decided to fight against fictitious flags and that's why I do it. I believe that the best way how to do it isn't just to remove it and leave it blank, but also REPLACE it by something closest to the truth, otherwise the fight against fictional images will never end. It's certain that John Skylitzes is definitely closer to reality than any fictitious flag, which I saw here. The manuscript is a historical document from the medieval period. Fictional symbolism circulates everywhere on the internet, also in books and games, Wikipedia may affect this. If state or dynastic symbolism is missing, then we can at least settle for a military banner as other articles have done, it's not unique, many articles had to settle for a military standard or other symbol, or a flag that came from another source. It's like other flags or banners which are mentioned only in western portolan maps, these are also controversial and yet they are used. For example, the flag of the Empire of Trebizond could not exist because it is only in western portolan maps, which is only western sources, but there is some conformity between them, so probability can be expected. I know it's not completely reliable, therefore, an extended description is required there. Without it, it would not be possible. Readers can read it and than may not think that this particular banner is the state flag of the Angelos dynasty, but they also finds out that it isn't a double-headed eagle, there isn't possibility for speculation. That's why I didn't create one banner, but four at the same time. We can put two of them side by side and show that the repertoire of flags was diverse, but if we left it without a flag, banner or without any symbol, it has no effect, it only helps speculation. If you know of any more trusted sources than John Skylitzes, don't hesitate to mention it, we can create another banner, flag or emblem. As for the labarum, I think that its validity should have ended perhaps with the end of classical antiquity, perhaps in the 6th century, which is only my hypothesis, but indeed the longevity of the Chi Rho and the labarum cannot be documented after the lifespan of the Eastern Roman Empire. When classical antiquity ended and the Eastern Roman Empire transformed into the "Byzantine Empire", so it's also the end for the Chi Rho and the labarum. It has been mentioned somewhere that Greek crosses or other religious symbols sometimes appeared on Byzantine banners, but the use of Chi Rho is contradictory with it. -- Dragovit (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dragovit: Hmmm, well, I too agree with most of what you write, but not quite. The portolans for example were made for the explicit purpose of being used by contemporaries, so the information they contain is a) factual (as far as the author knew) and b) reflects the then current situation. With Skylitzes, on the other hand, the variables are more, as mentioned above. And I do disagree that showing one or more clearly military flags in the infobox is better than showing nothing; I repeat that infoboxes are not suited to complexity (not just on the flag issue), and of course a military flag is not a state flag (BTW, I did add one of the banners to the Byzantine army article). There is no rule that states that we have to have a flag in the infobox. For most pre-modern states, the absence of a flag should indeed be the rule, as most of them simply had no concept of state heraldry.

On countering speculation and inaccuracy, if there is the double-headed eagle or a completely incorrect design used in an infobox, the correct course of action is to remove them, not replace them with slightly less speculative alternatives. For the interested reader, I have written the Byzantine flags and insignia article, you are more than welcome to add your flags and any sources you have there.

On the Chi-Rho labarum, the 7th century is indeed the most common "transformation" point for the state, but not the only possibility; and since we all agree that it was still the same state, changing the insigne associated with it is, at the very least, a non-trivial and thus debatable decision that flows into the whole '(East) Roman' vs 'Byzantine' debate that we really don't need to add to. Now, even if we accept that we should change the labarum because it falls out of use after the 6th century, the evidence for it being replaced by the Greek cross is sketchy: the sources mention the use of crosses as field insignia in the 10th century, but the main iconographic source for the kind of designs you suggest is the Madrid Skylitzes, which as stated is a problematic source. The Chi-Rho is a faulty solution, but it (sort of) 'works', for now. I remain open to suggestions (e.g. to replace the Chi-Rho altogether), but the main objective here should be to minimize the amount of arbitrary decisions we need to make. Constantine ✍ 23:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I've seen many articles in which was placed the civil flag, the war flag, the merchant ensign or even the attributed arms instead of the state flag, because it was missing. But there was a description and it's solved the controversy. The conditions you have indicated here would make any of this impossible. Most banners and flags couldn't be used not even those from portolan maps, because they often use vexillology or heraldic signs in places where heraldry and vexillology didn't exist. Placing the flag in the infobox is one matter and I understand why you are reticent. But what about the flag icons in articles about wars and battles? Why is labarum in the article Sack of Constantinople? The military banner can be used there. Creating historically accurate banners is the first step how to replace fictitious flags, but what's the point when I can't use them anywhere, because ancient Chi Rho has been placed everywhere? That is incomprehensible. The use of the Chi Rho or the labarum at the time of the Sack of Constantinople is not documented, on the one hand, any of those military banners from the manuscript of John Skylitzes is more credible than the Chi Rho. If the military banner can be placed in the article Byzantine army, then I think it can also be placed in the article Sack of Constantinople and other wars and battles. I think the arguments against placing the military banner in the state infoboxes do not apply to articles about military conflicts. -- Dragovit (talk) 8:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dragovit: I've seen many articles... this falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. The civil flag, war flag, etc are still state symbols, and therefore representative of the state. I definitely don't agree with other articles using attributed arms, but because some other articles follow an incorrect (IMO) practice, that does not mean we should follow suit everywhere else. I care about the Byzantine Empire-related articles, I cannot patrol all of Wikipedia.

But what about the flag icons in articles about wars and battles? If you want to replace the Chi-Rho with the Greek cross or another symbol for articles like this, be my guest, since here it is evident that it is a symbolic stand-in rather than a flag. However, for the Sack of Constantinople in particular, I would argue that no icon for the Byzantines is necessary. Per MOS:ICON, icons should only be used to distinguish between different entries, and the Byzantines are all alone in the infobox there. Again, this is a penchant of fellow Wikipedians; I try to remove over-zealous icon-ification, but someone always puts something back in again.

On using the military banner instead of the Chi-Rho for infobox lists, again, I would agree if this were the war flag of the Byzantine state, but it is not. It is one design among many in the Madrid Skylitzes, and should not be used as representative. If it is problematic to use it as a flag in a country infobox, where at least some context explanation can be provided in the caption, it is even more problematic to simply incorporate it into lists as an icon. That provides no context at all, makes it appear as a state emblem, and will mislead a lot of people into using it as such.

To make it clear: if I am too cautious, it is because I have seen these small inaccuracies, errors and misinterpretations proliferate too many times. One well-intentioned editor puts the 'Doukas arms' or something as an icon in an infobox, and a year later, the Russian Wikipedia shows them as state emblems during the Doukas dynasty, and then this passes into the Wikidata entry, and is replicated within Wikipedia and beyond. Constantine ✍ 07:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

So please follow your own rules and remove the Chi Rho or I'll do it, does not make any sense. Thanks. I think the military banners of John Skylitzes are more credible than "Dukas Arms", it's not the same, but Chi Rho it is like "Dukas Arms". I do not understand that in the main article about the Byzantine Empire is presented solidus with Pantokrator as a "common motif", but in another article of the Byzantine Empire it isn't possible to present the Greek cross or military banner with cross in this way. So either the rules apply everywhere or nowhere. -- Dragovit (talk) 9:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand that in the main article about the Byzantine Empire is presented solidus with Pantokrator as a "common motif", but in another article of the Byzantine Empire it isn't possible to present the Greek cross or military banner with cross in this way. I can solve this for you: the Christ Pantokrator is an actual Byzantine design, found on coins, in churches, etc. The gold coin is representative of the Byzantine state, because it is an actual item produced by the Byzantine state and expressive of its authority, prestige, wealth, ideology, etc., being used on Byzantine coins for several centuries. The Greek cross is a 'motif' that we extrapolate from some sources; the military banner is one among many variants of banners (you yourself created several of them) found in 'one source, which are all neither representative nor necessarily authentic. Constantine ✍ 13:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Pennants over the emperor Theophilos

It seems to me that Christ Pantokrator is only a religious (ideological) symbol. The symbol of statehood on coins has always been depictions of emperors, not pagan gods and then Christ. The gods on the coins have the role of divine protectors of the emperor and the state, but they are not a symbol of the state itself. If I'm wrong, correct me. I believe that solidus with Pantokrator is in the infobox of the state only because it isn't understood correctly. The Christ is the divine protector, his depiction on the coin is only religious "motif" and nothing else. And what is your opinion of pennants? The pennants also have identical colors red-blue-white and are in the presence of the emperor unlike military banners. -- Dragovit (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that the Pantokrator is a religious (ideological) symbol, but so what? The Roman eagle is also a religious symbol; Athena's head and owl is also a religious symbol; all modern cross-bearing flags are also religious symbols originally, as, indeed, is the Greek cross you proposed. Most pre-modern emblems had at least some religious element. More importantly, the Pantokrator is a motif that was consistently used on coinage irrespective of who was the emperor, and could be used to identify Byzantine coins. But I think you misunderstand something fundamental: it is not the Pantokrator alone that is used to 'personify' the Byzantine state, but the solidus. The solidus was the international currency of its time, and in its way, it is just as representative of the Byzantine state and its influence as the dollar is of the modern US, or the Athenian "owl" tetradrachm of the Athenian democracy and its empire.

On the pennants, to me these seem to be just smaller variants of the military banners. Again, I caution against reading too much into a 12th-century miniature that is a copy of at least one other miniature, itself depicting a scene from the early 9th century. About the only information we can extract from the Madrid Skylitzes is that a) red and blue flags, sometimes with white, were used; b) the cross was present on the field of some of these and c) most had streamers or pennants. Flags of this type are described in the Strategikon for example, as unit flags; but whether the Madrid Skylitzes flags are actual examples, or even representative of actual usage, is unknown, let alone what units or persons they may have represented or what significance these flags may have had. If the manuscript illustrator had used flags in a consistent manner, we could be tempted to place some reliance on it, but he appears to treat flags as decorative elements. This is unfortunate, but that's the way it is. Constantine ✍ 09:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for placing the banners in important articles, the positive effect is that they started appearing in the search engine next to fictitious flags. So after comparing Pantokrator on the solidus with the Roman eagle and the goddess Athena, did you conclude that Jesus Christ was a state symbol of the Byzantine Empire? How can the Pantocrator be a symbol of the Byzantine Empire and at the same time be an international currency? This is an obvious contradiction. Pantocrator isn't depicted on every Byzantine coin, so that means it wasn't necessary, but for the state insignia it would be necessary and there is a difference. In contrast, the image of Emperor Theophilus and the pennants above him is evidence that these banners were an imperial insignia, because there are only emperor and his court, there are no soldiers present, except the emperor's bodyguard, so these banners can't be military. Of course, it is according to the author of the manuscript, but it's much more than the hypothesis about Pantocrator and the solidus, where there is no material evidence. That's enaugh, for other flags, much less was needed to create and place them in the infobox, some were created based on description only, but these banners have material evidence and that is the pictures. The pictures are valuable, without defects and it is unlikely that the author would invent fictinal banners for all own images. If they were made up, why would they stick to the same shapes and colors? There are more similarities than differences. -- Dragovit (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

did you conclude that Jesus Christ was a state symbol of the Byzantine Empire? you didn't read carefully what I wrote: the solidus is used as a symbol of the Byzantine state, not as an insigne of the Byzantine state, in the same way that the Athenian "own" coins are used as representative of the Athenian republic, and the US dollar might be used as representative of the US if the latter did not have a proper set of arms, flag, etc. Remeber that in the ancient world, coinage was the symbol of state power par excellence; the right to mint coins was a cardinal attribute of sovereignty.

the image of Emperor Theophilus and the pennants above him is evidence that these banners were an imperial insignia and if we could place any reasonable confidence in the Skylitzes illustrator, that would be worth something. But we can't Theophilos is often depicted, always with different flags. There is no consistency to try to build a case on.

unlikely that the author would invent fictinal banners for all own images the author, like many if not all medieval illustrators, was not interested in historical accuracy. He did not actively seek to mislead, but he certainly never thought that someone might consider his miniatures as depicting objective reality in the way of photographs. He used common conventions of his time to illustrate events from the past. Almost all medieval art is anachronistic in this way, as it draws inspiration from contemporary images that would be familiar to viewers, which is why you will see Alexander the Great in the dress of a Byzantine emperor, or 4th-century saints in 15th-century Gothic plate armour. And again, the accuracy of the manuscript's depictions is simply unquantifiable. I refer you to the article on Byzantine flags, where it explicitly states "Illuminated chronicles often depict flags conforming to the general bandon type in various colours and designs, but their accuracy is doubtful." based on G. T. Dennis' article on Byzantine military flags.

for other flags, much less was needed to create and place them in the infobox I repeat what I wrote above: that's other stuff; we could probably go through a case-by-case basis, and make judgments where this extrapolation is warranted or not, but that is beside the point. Constantine ✍ 17:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm convinced that those coins are just a theory, nothing more, there isn't any material evidence for this, unlike a medieval chronicle with colored illustrations. Jesus Christ was worshiped throughout the Christian world at that time, not just in the Byzantine Empire, so there is nothing original about the motif of Pantokrator, it only demonstrates the Christian faith of the Byzantine Empire. What I wonder is why you removed the military banners from the article when you added one there before, I find it a bit schizophrenic. The Italian article was full of conjectural/fictional flags and I replaced them with my own, but you removed them all, really illogical. Banners from the medieval chronicle cannot be marked as "ahistorical/conjectural". I said that many articles about historic states use flags from the western portolans that are less credible. Madrid Skylitzes is more credible compared to them, even though it is a copy from Sicily, it doesn't matter. For example, the Serbian Empire uses a yellow flag with a red double-headed eagle because it is on the portolan, but it isn't certain that this was indeed the case. It is referred to as the "reconstruction" and design of the double-headed eagle was probably transferred from elsewhere, probably from the coat of arms, but this isn't a problem why the "reconstruction" could not be used in the article. So this is an example of how it works in other articles. Moreover, it is an illogical bad move, because the banners have now appeared on the Internet and pushed out fictitious/fantasy flags, but now you have achieved nothing, congratulations. You will probably secure the wiki articles from fictitious flags for the rest of your life. --Dragovit 14:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Banners from the medieval chronicle cannot be marked as "ahistorical/conjectural". yes they can, when the chronicle in question was illuminated by an author living in a different country (Sicily) and at a few centuries remove from the events he is illustrating. This is not my opinion, but of scholars who have examined this work and the topic of Byzantine flags. because the banners have now appeared on the Internet and pushed out fictitious/fantasy flags, but now you have achieved nothing, congratulations that is because of you pushing these banners, whose accuracy and nature are completely hypothetical, across Wikipedia, regardless of my warnings. This is your achievement. You are no better than all the other 'Byzantine flag' designers out there, you just happen to have used a slightly better source, but without the proper caution, since you are willing to take random designs and put them in place of 'national flags' of the Byzantine Empire. Congratulations for adding even more (slightly less)– bogus material to the mix, I hope you feel proud of yourself, and that your life has gained meaning because of this. Constantine ✍ 13:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I expanded the answer. --Dragovit 14:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

many articles about historic states use flags from the western portolans that are less credible. Madrid Skylitzes is more credible compared to them, even though it is a copy from Sicily, it doesn't matter. That is patently untrue: the portolans depict contemporary information, from and for merchants who needed that information to gauge the sovereignty of the ports they were trading in. Some of the flags in the portolans may have been garbled and distorted in transmission, but for Byzantium at least, the flags shown correspond a) with written documentation from Byzantine sources, and b) with other pictorial evidence from the period. Furthermore, the usage of the "4B" flag in portolans, for example, is consistent across them all, which is not the case for the designs in the Madrid Skylitzes, which serve as decorative elements rather than as identifying symbols of specific persons, units, or states.

I repeat: the illustrator of the Skyliztes manuscript follows artistic conventions, he was not interested in historical accuracy. This should be obvious to anyone who has studied the work, but apparently it is not to you. So let me give you a few examples: in many illuminations, the soldiers are all clothed and armed the same, whether they are Byzantines, Saracens, Bulgars (e.g. 1 or 2); Vasiliki Tsakmada, who analyzed the Skylitzes manuscript, notes that "The painters do not differentiate between the flags of the Byzantines and their enemies" (p. 312), while Babuin, in his 2001 article on Byzantine flags, remarked on those shown in Sklyitzes that a) "no particular decorative pattern seems to prevail", noting that all flags are essentially different, and that less than 20% of them feature the cross; and b) that the very long streamers shown in Skylitzes are a "peculiarity" that "is not usually found among images that come directly from the Byzantine area of influence", whereas they are extremely common in Southern Italian art. So your flags are less inaccurate than entirely fictional flags, but still a long way off from being "accurate". Constantine ✍ 13:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I see that the "arguments" against the Madrid Skylitzes are only doubts. These findings may change over time or other scholars may have other theories, there are no definitive conclusions. First, there are a few inaccuracies. It is not definitively true that Sicily is a "different country", because for many years Sicily was part of the Byzantine Empire and its influence lasted long after (Byzantines also participated in the Sicilian vespers). So Madrid Skylitzes isn't less credible source because it comes from Sicily as a "different" country, it is incorrect and poor argument, so it can't even apply that these banners based on Madrid Skylitzes are at the same level with fictional/fantasy flags that are not based on anything. Also it isn't definitively true that all my self-made banners are from Madrid Skylitzes, this is also incorrect, because the number 5 and 7 are from other manuscripts of an unknown authors. I have never claimed that any of these banners is the exact state flag of the Byzantine Empire, but by comparing them, somebody can conclude that there are certain similarities. Some historians have already concluded that the Byzantines used religious symbols on flags like Greek crosses. It is therefore incorrect to remove my banners and leave a blank space. You did not explain why you removed the banners from the article when you put one of them there before. Have you changed your mind or what? I find it schizophrenic. Why I oppose western portolans is that they often do not contain the exact form of the flag, but only a rough sketch. For example the "reconstruction" of the flag of the Serbian Empire certainly does not look like the one on the portolan. The author of the portolan did not consider it important to redraw the flag exactly, only as a rough sketch, so even this "reconstruction" is only hypothetical/conjectural, you can compare it is the redraw of portolan's original and this is the final reconstruction, the double-headed eagle is completely different, but there is no problem with use, the approach of wikipedists in the article about Serbian Empire is probably different from yours. Also your 14th-century Byzantine imperial flag , which you created about 10 years ago, was created on the basis of the castilian portolan Book of All Kingdoms is apparently inaccurate (Castile is definitively a different country, which has never been part of the Byzantine Empire), because it uses letters "corrupted" by western heraldry. I found this information that the letters should look different. Congratulations, so neither your creations nor your arguments are trustworthy. I see no reason why my own banners cannot be placed somewhere with proper commentary. Also your Palaiologan imperial flag based on the portolan should be appropriately commented. --Dragovit 00:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sigh.... I see that the "arguments" against the Madrid Skylitzes are only doubts they are not 'only doubts', they are comments made by scholars, whom we must follow per WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, and WP:RS. The Madrid Skylitzes, in itself, is not a WP:RS. It is not definitively true that Sicily is a "different country" you think I don't know that Sicily had a long history as part of the Byzantine Empire? Seriously? But the direct connection with Byzantium, as in being part of the Byzantine state, was over more than two centuries before the illustration of the Madrid Skylitzes (one, if you count Maniakes' campaign). Yes, Sicily did retain a connection to the Byzantine world, which is why the manuscript was copied and illustrated there in the first place. Yes, it is plausible that someone may have travelled to Byzantium and seen their flags, for example during the Norman campaigns there, but this is supposition. We don't know and if we want to be strict, we can't make any definitive arguments based on this.

And you still do not address the main problem with Skyliztes, namely that the manuscript illustrators painted their images based on artistic conventions and not naturalistically. It was not their intention to make a realistic depiction of the world as it was during their time, let alone the events the chronicle describes. On the flags, the scholars are of the opinion that the document is at best suitable for gauging the general look and feel of the flags, but not any specifics. I readily admit that; that's why I have included them in the Byzantine flags and insignia article. But when you, Dragovit, pick out one of these flags, and put it in a prominent spot in an infobox, or in templates, as "the flag of the Byzantine Empire under the Komnenian emperors", then you engage in WP:OR, period. Because a) you don't know whether that flag ever actually existed, or is merely an approximate design by an artist and b), and here comes the chief component of original research, you don't know, because you can't know what that flag represented, whether it was the flag of a simple army unit, or the emperor, or a ship, or whatever. When you choose an example from among the flags, and assign a role to it that is not founded on WP:RS, that is original research. Period. That is why I removed the banners from the article when you put one of them there before.

On the portolans, let me repeat what I wrote above: "Some of the flags in the portolans may have been garbled and distorted in transmission". The flag of the Serbian Empire that yoiu mention is an example of that, but even the garbled portolan flag is clearly the double-headed eagle, which is known by other sources to have been used by the Serbs. Thus, for example, the quartered Genoese-Byzantine flag is possibly also such an error in transmission, artistic liberty to represent the dual political constellation of Constantinople/Galata, or possibly the flag used in Galata to denote the theoretical Byzantine suzerainty. We don't know. However, was created on the basis of the same Book of All Kingdoms, but is a shape and design that a) corresponds with the description of Byzantine flags in a contemporary Byzantine source, namely pseudo-Kodinos, and b) the pattern corresponds to a number of historical and contemporary depictions of the Byzantine flag and arms under the Palaiologoi. There is an entire gallery at Byzantine flags and insignia#Tetragrammatic cross attesting to that fact. And here is the contrast to Skylitzes, where not a single flag is repeated; not a single design can be assigned a position, role, function, because there is no pattern to be found, as discovered by Babuin. Why is that? Because again, for the n-th time, the purpose of the Skylitzes manuscript illuminators was to illustrate a manuscript, not record reality in a photorealistic manner. That is the hallmark of all medieval art. Whereas the portolans, although made in a different country, were made using information from contemporary merchants, and for contemporary merchants. Which is why, unlike Skyliztes, the flag as shown in the Book of All Kingdoms is accepted by modern scholars as fairly accurate.

To be clear, I would be very happy to have a source that gave us knowledge about the flags used by the Byzantines. I would be very happy if some reliable source came along and said, you know the flag flown in Skylitzes around Theophilos? They are the flags of X regiment. The problem is, we don't have that, and probably never will. Do you think, in the ten plus years I've been doing this, that it never crossed my mind to mine Skylitzes? Of course it did, but I was well aware of the arguments against placing too much reliance on the flags shown there. Unfortunately, they are not reliable enough, and that is not my opinion, but that of scholars who specialize in the field. It is as simple as that. Constantine ✍ 10:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Italian Front (World War I) has been nominated for renaming

Category:Italian Front (World War I) has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Marquisate of Bodonitsa has been nominated for deletion

Category:Marquisate of Bodonitsa has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Manuel Komnenos (son of Andronikos I)

On 28 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Manuel Komnenos (son of Andronikos I), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although he was the eldest son of Byzantine emperor Andronikos I Komnenos, Manuel Komnenos was not named as heir, as he opposed his father's policies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Manuel Komnenos (son of Andronikos I). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Manuel Komnenos (son of Andronikos I)), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Palaiologos (megas hetaireiarches)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article George Palaiologos (megas hetaireiarches) 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 Modussiccandi -- Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Palaiologos (megas hetaireiarches)

The article George Palaiologos (megas hetaireiarches) 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:George Palaiologos (megas hetaireiarches) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Modussiccandi -- Modussiccandi (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge History of China template?

I much admire your recent edits at Qing dynasty using an elegant Cambridge History of China template (I think) that I had never seen before. I'd be grateful to learn just what it is. It would save much time!

I did figure it out well enough, though, to correct the entry for the Liu/ Smith article, changing "author1-first" to "first1", which produced the authors of the chapter rather than the editors of the volume and made the footnotes come out right again.

All the best. ch (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi ch! That is precisely the point of the template, to save time, ensure consistency and accuracy of the reference information, and ease verifiability by providing, as far as possible, a url of the source. I've created a number of similar templates (mostly for medieval European/Byzantine/early Islamic topics), and I find it makes referencing much, much easier. Unfortunately, as you discovered, because the template is already an instance of the cite template, not all parameters of the latter are supported. Thanks for the correction! If you need any assistance with it, or with creating new templates, don't hesitate to ask! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I would very much like to take up your kind offer of advice. I will use your CHOC template as a model, though I will amend it to show the authors of the particular chapter rather than simply the editors of the volume or series, which would be like showing the editors of a journal or magazine and leaving out the author of a particular chapter (which is often book length itself).

Your unemended template also changes the alphabetical order of the item, as in Military of the Qing dynasty. It would also be very desirable to have links to particular pages in online version, which probably would need a "url= " field.

But I'm not clear on how the thing works. I often use the encyclopedia template:

{{encyclopedia|last=Last |first=First|editor-last=Editor last |editor-first= Editor first|title= Book Title |chapter= Chapter Title|publisher= Publisher|place= Place|year= 2020|ref=none}},

which shows both editor and chapter author, Last, First (2020). "Chapter Title". In Editor last, Editor first (ed.). Book Title. Place: Publisher. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |editor-last= has generic name (help) but your template is much better.

For example:

{{The Cambridge History of China|volume=11|'''author-last1'''=Liu|'''author-first1'''=Kwang-ching|author-last2=Smith|author-first2=Richard J.|chapter=The Military Challenge: The North-west and the Coast|pages= |ref= none}}.

produces

Liu, Kwang-ching; Smith, Richard J. (1980). "The Military Challenge: The North-west and the Coast". In Fairbank, John K.; Liu, Kwang-Ching (eds.). The Cambridge History of China, Volume 11: Late Ch'ing 1800–1911, Part 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-22029-3.

which makes it look as if Fairbank and Liu wrote the chapter, rather than Liu and Smith. The correct version would be (with "ref=none" added)

{{The Cambridge History of China|volume=11 | '''last1''' = Liu |'''first1''' = Kwang-Ching | last2 = Smith | first2 = Richard J. | chapter = The Military Challenge: The North-west and the Coast | pages = 202–273 |ref=none}}

which produces Liu, Kwang-Ching; Smith, Richard J. (1980). "The Military Challenge: The North-west and the Coast". In Fairbank, John K.; Liu, Kwang-Ching (eds.). The Cambridge History of China, Volume 11: Late Ch'ing 1800–1911, Part 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 202–273. ISBN 978-0-521-22029-3.

Now I'm in over my head. I don't see how your elegant

{{The Cambridge History of China|volume=9a | first = Gertraude Roth | last = Li | chapter = State building before 1644 | pages = 9–72 }}

correctly produces

Li, Gertraude Roth (2002). "State building before 1644". In Peterson, Willard J. (ed.). The Cambridge History of China, Volume 9: The Ch'ing Empire to 1800, Part One. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 9–72. ISBN 978-0-521-24334-6.

Where does the template get the editors etc? I want to make a template for Science and Civilisation in China and would much appreciate any help, or maybe just a reference to "How Make Your Own Templates".

Thanks once more... ch (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi ch! The reason is very simple: the template is a partly-filled in version of the {{cite book}} template, so the options it offers are a subset of the original template's. There are pre-defined options for title, volume editors, year, isbn, and url, based on the volume number. If you edit the template, you will see where these are defined with {{#switch:{{{volume|}}}...}}.

For the chapter authors, the template supports the most common parameters last/first, surname/given, last1/first1, surname1/given1, authorlink/author-link/authorlink1, and last2/first2, surname2/given2, authorlink2. So the reason why {{The Cambridge History of China|volume=11|author-last1=Liu|author-first1=Kwang-ching|author-last2=Smith|author-first2=Richard J.|chapter=The Military Challenge: The North-west and the Coast|pages= |ref= none}} doesn't work is because the parameters author-last1/author-first1 are not explicitly defined in the Cambridge History of China template. {{The Cambridge History of China|volume=11|last1=Liu|first1=Kwang-ching|author-last2=Smith|author-first2=Richard J.|chapter=The Military Challenge: The North-west and the Coast|pages= }} on the other hand correctly produces

Liu, Kwang-ching; Smith, Richard J. (1980). "The Military Challenge: The North-west and the Coast". In Fairbank, John K.; Liu, Kwang-Ching (eds.). The Cambridge History of China, Volume 11: Late Ch'ing 1800–1911, Part 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-22029-3..

The solution to this is either to add the missing author-last1/author-first1 parameters to the template, or change the instances where these occur to one of the supported variants. I have done the former now, and as you can see above, the template is working correctly.

On including a link to the specific page, you can do this by including the link in the |pp= parameter in the inline referencing templates (e.g. {{sfn|Lastname|Year|pp=[http://www.url.org?p=xx xx]-xxi}}, as the |url= parameter is dedicated to the volume as a whole. However, I recommend using the |chapterurl= and |quote= parameters instead, as urls to every page produce very messy wikitext.

On the Science and Civilisation in China template, I'd be glad to help. If you want, I can write it up for you; alternatively, if you want to try it out yourself (it's a useful skill to have), create a sandbox and I'll have a look at it and guide you along. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Palaiologos (megas hetaireiarches)

The article George Palaiologos (megas hetaireiarches) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:George Palaiologos (megas hetaireiarches) 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 Modussiccandi -- Modussiccandi (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Eponymous priests of Alexander has been nominated for renaming

Category:Eponymous priests of Alexander has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Cplakidas,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Accidental revert on Muhammad al-Baqir, my bad

Sorry about reverting your edit earlier. I think I must have clicked rollback by mistake.
Alivardi (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: Thanks for the explanation, no worries. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Eastern Mediterranean EEZ and Territorial Sea Map/Maps

@Cplakidas: Hello Constantine. I would like to ask whether you have some time to create a map or two, that presents the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) and Territorial Sea limits in the Eastern Mediterranean per the guidelines of UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). These images are needed in order to be added on the new Blue Homeland (Turkish: Mavi Vatan) article, which was created a few days ago. We need them in order to visually represent the views of the international community in contrast to the views of Turkey. If you choose to assist with the creation of them, these following sources might prove useful.

1: Source and Relevant Image (EEZ of Turkey per Turkey's views has in fact been expanded more to the West per the doctrine of the "Blue Homeland")

2: Source and Relevant Image

3: Source and Relevant Image (EEZ and Territorial Sea limits for the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean States)

4: Source and Relevant Image (EEZ and Territorial Sea limits for the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean States)

Thanks in advance for your valuable time. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Demetrios1993, I fear I don't have much time for this. I already have delayed a lot of other promised maps due to increased RL workload. To do this properly, one would also need to use GIS software, with which I am not terribly familiar. Furthermore, given the sensitive nature of the topic, I would recommend that a third-party editor (i.e., not a Greek, because this will likely become a point of contention) creates them. So I recommend making the request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop instead. Constantine ✍ 15:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: No worries Constantine. Before making a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, i will ask a few other users i know if they can do it instead. Thanks again for your time. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the war in Ukraine

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) 22:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

CalligrapherAR making unnecessary edits to Islamic figures.

Hello Cplakidas, I've already had another editor look at this but told me to go to you instead as you are more educated on the topic. The user I have mentioned above is going around on different articles on Islamic figures and making unnecessary changes that sway from trying to keep a neutral POV on the articles and is using unreliable referencing, he also doesn't seem to know that a sheikh or monarch is simply not a caliph. I don't want to engage in a edit war with this user and I'm myself not very familiar with wikipedia so I was hoping if you'd be able to investigate this by looking at his contributions, I can already see you have tried to do revert an edit of his and so it seems that you know about their actions. An example is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_al-Ridha&action=history where he's just doing unnecessary changes. I am happy to revert the pages to back to how they were before his edits but this will result in a edit war and he will just keep reverting them back to his edits, you can see me trying to resolve this here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CalligrapherAR#Medium_is_not_a_reliable_source. Butene (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Butene, yes, the user in question appears to be engaged in problematic editing behaviour, namely textbook POV-pushing (labelling Shi'a imams as "Sunni scholars" can hardly be an accident). You have warned him in his talk page, let's see if he will take this to heart. Should he persist, there are remedies that will lead to his being blocked, either from the topic or from Wikipedia generally. On one issue, however, you are wrong: caliphs are monarchs, at least if they also hold temporal power, as e.g. the Umayyad caliphs did. Constantine ✍ 21:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

So should I attempt to revert them back to what they were before his edits and see what he does from theree? It doesn't seem like he would stop considering he went against what he has said the first time with another editor and I'm not really sure on what to do in this situation. Also, you are right in this sense of caliphs and if am honest I'm not educated in topics relating to power, only religion. Butene (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, if his edits are not constructive, you are of course free to revert back, especially if he does not respond to your well-intentioned queries. However, an edit war is not advisable; there exists a limit that applies to both, per WP:3RR. If the problem persists, then the problem should be reported, for example to WP:DISPUTE, and eventually to WP:ANI, if he remains unresponsive. Constantine ✍ 21:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Cplakidas, it seems that this user is still textbook POV-pushing by either adding Sunni portals to several to several articles (which is fine by me although I can't see the justification as you might as well add it to everyone who they deem as Sunni) but is also trying to remove certain tags or notations that state that it's a Sunni view and just leaving it as a "Muslim view" that whilst also putting in a "Shia view" afterwards which can be seen on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali&action=history which also makes it apparent from his reason of edits that he is favouring his own denomination. He is also made edit where it's apparently a "tradition" for Shias to curse revered Sunni figures(which is just absolutely wrong) without any citations or sources and then referenced a hadith from a source which I'm not sure if it counts as reliable or if it's even true(authentic) which can be seen from here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunni_fatwas_on_Shias&action=history. He also seems to be editing some Turkish pages(as they seem to be Turkish) but I have left those alone since I'm not Turkish myself nor educated on those topics. I have tried to see how I was able to dispute his actions with what you have given me but I still can't figure it out so I was hoping you'd be able to as it seems you're a really experienced editor, thanks. Butene (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Wathiq

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Al-Wathiq 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) 22:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

my revert at Member states of the International Labour Organization

Just to clarify, the change you made caused the text to be incorrect, the ILO is not the third oldest international organisation (that would be the Universal Postal Union), whereas the ILO is the third oldest multilateral organisation (to my knowledge, the Rhine Commission is not regarded as a multilateral institution). I'm not particularly wedded to using multilateral, but if you prefer international organisation, then I'm not certain about the ILO's status (fourth or fifth?). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Goldsztajn, no problem with your revert, but I would suggest adding somewhere what the difference between a multilateral and an international organization is. I admit I struggle to think of a clear-cut distinction between the two. Constantine ✍ 13:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I read your reply a few days ago, typed out a quick response thinking I had an immediate answer, then hesitated and went down a rabbit-hole of research trying to answer ... I *had* thought the meaning of a multilateral institution was any organisation open to any state, whereas an international institution was limited by definition (hence the Rhine Commission is international, since only open to those bordering the Rhine, whereas the League of Nations was multilateral since open to all states) ... in IR theory multilateral is used as meaning any (organisational) concurrence in relationship between three or more states (per Robert Keohane) ... so NATO or the EU are considered multilateral ... therefore more or less the same as international (with the exception of bilateral relations); or put another way, multilateral and bilateral are subsets of international. This doesn't really resolve the claim of the ILO's status ... clearly it is both a multilateral and an international organisation ... the difficulty being I have RS for the ILO being the third oldest multilateral organisation, but nothing regarding the ILO as an international organisation. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Goldsztajn, this is indeed confusing. On the immediate issue at hand, I would suggest citing the source explicitly in the article (including "According to X, the ILO..."). On the distinction, I still don't understand it. How can an international organization not be multilateral, when by definition it is 'between nations'? And given the primacy of nation-states in diplomacy, how can multilateral organizations not be international (as opposed to, say, between various associations? I really can't think of a 'multilateral' example that is not 'international' as well...)? Constantine ✍ 20:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen anyone indicate that multilateral is not international (nor was that my intention), rather that multilateral is a specific subset of international (just my definition of multilateral was more narrow/exclusionary). In this specific case, I think the claim of the ILO being the third oldest multilateral organisation, is really code for saying the third oldest UN agency (or its antecedents) ... which happens to make it the fourth oldest international organisation (as far as I can tell, but cannot reference at this point!). Will add the citation and language as you suggest, regards --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

M.Bitton (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thank you M.Bitton, to you and yours a happy holiday season! Constantine ✍ 10:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Natalis soli invicto!

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Ealdgyth! Likewise, to you and your loved ones, the very best wishes for health and happiness in the year to come! Constantine ✍ 14:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Excubitors

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Excubitors 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) 15:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Spinarizza

There is absolutely no reason to delete my edit. It helps the reader to understand the fact that the Ruins of Spinarizza can be found at the old mouth of Vjosa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denissaliaj (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to read this in context: the section deals about the old course of the river, and needs a citation. The average reader won't know Spinarizza or any other location nearby, and this does not help in supporting the information about the old course of the river either. Any settlements located along the river, now or earlier, belong elsewhere in the article. --Constantine ✍ 21:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks a lot for your corrections on Epirus (Roman province), especially the Latin and Greek. My Latin is not that great, and I don't know Greek at all (I had copied the Greek text from somewhere). Some nice fresh strawberries to top it up HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you HalfdanRagnarsson, they are delicious :). And thanks for creating the article as well! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Wathiq

The article Al-Wathiq 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:Al-Wathiq for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Wathiq

The article Al-Wathiq you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Al-Wathiq 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Swords for Battle of Fakhkh, Battle of Trapani, and Manuel Kamytzes. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

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) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Excubitors

The article Excubitors you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Excubitors 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

• New EBSCO collections now available
• 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
• Library Card input requested
• Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Ibn al-Dahhak

Hello I am new to Wikipedia I didn't know how else to contact you so I do apologise if this is inappropriate!

On the Ibn Al-Dahhak page you created, the source doesn't work. The website's is inaccessible. Do you know what his name in Latin was and where I can find out more? Thank you for your time! :) Kayomart (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Kayomart. This is strange, the website works perfectly fine for me. And I don't understand what you mean by "his name in Latin"; the transliterated form of his Arabic name into the Latin alphabet is Ibn al-Dahhak, there is no other 'Latin' name, except perhaps through variant transliterations (e.g., Ibn ad-Daḥḥāk, which is how the source has it). Constantine ✍ 07:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

For me when I click Access Content nothing happens, a new page loads but not the content. As for the Latin name I meant what did the Byzantines call him since he was in contact with them surely a Latin/Greek name for him existed. Kayomart (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This is really odd, possibly your browser has some problem. Anyhow, the direct url to his article is https://db.degruyter.com/view/PMBZ/PMBZ24838. And apparently he is only mentioned in Muslim sources, so his Greek name is not known. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Al-Wathiq

On 31 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Al-Wathiq, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 9th-century Abbasid caliph al-Wathiq, whose five-year reign is considered by historians to be unremarkable, was heavily fictionalized in the 18th-century Gothic fantasy novel Vathek? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Wathiq. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Al-Wathiq), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Bartholomew II Ghisi

Neither he, nor his family, seem to have ever lived in Italy - as it is now. Could they be described as Venetian? Rathfelder (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: that would be certainly not incorrect; the family were certainly from Venice, and maintained close links with the Venetian Republic (although I don't remember if they retained Venetian citizenship). Constantine ✍ 17:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That will do then. All this categories are a bit ambiguous.Rathfelder (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Abbasid governors of the Jazira has been nominated for merging

Category:Abbasid governors of the Jazira has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Byzantine–Venetian treaty of 1277

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Byzantine–Venetian treaty of 1277 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) 18:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Mustakfi

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Al-Mustakfi 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) 19:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Biraz baklava da sizin için!

Thanks for improving refs. Beshogur (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Teşekkür ederim, Beshogur, a piece of good baklava is always welcome :). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 22:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

An article

Can you please write an article about Niketas of Mistheia. 2A02:908:4E1:4B60:8DAA:874A:BDCF:B12B (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Al-Ta'i

I didn't feel this was routine maintenance, because "strict transliteration" is not our only criterion for article titles. This needs discussion and analysis of sources at Talk:At-Ta'i, with notices to relevant WikiProjects. Fences&Windows 18:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Byzantine–Venetian treaty of 1277

The article Byzantine–Venetian treaty of 1277 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Byzantine–Venetian treaty of 1277 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Halmyros

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 15, 2021. 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/March 15, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt, the main page text looks good! Constantine ✍ 17:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please doublecheck because after your edit I inserted the blurb from the FAC talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The new blurb is also fine, given the space constraints, I don't think anything needs to be changed. Constantine ✍ 17:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, about "a pivotal event in medieval Greek history, ending the first century of the Frankokratia with the rout of the Duchy of Athens and the installation of the Catalan Company as masters over much of central Greece, much to the consternation of pretty much every other power in the region"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I hope you enjoyed reading it. Constantine ✍ 09:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a great article, but I wouldn't say "enjoy" for dealing with battles ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Granted, the topic is rather bloody. One focuses often so much on the technical challenge of writing the article and presenting the context that one forgets what it translates to in reality... OTOH, it would be difficult to keep writing about history if one did not disassociate the 'historical topic' from its real-world implications somehow. Thanks for the reminder, though, it is good to get these from time to time :) Constantine ✍ 10:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ambassadors to the Grand Duchy of Moscow

A tag has been placed on Category:Ambassadors to the Grand Duchy of Moscow requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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) 14:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Mustakfi

The article Al-Mustakfi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Al-Mustakfi 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Stylianos Petrakis

Hi there, the reason why I made this change is that when using the template {{As of}}, it'll add the article to a particular category, in this case Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from January 2020. This is a maintenance category and it means that in the future the article is more likely to be checked by someone to see whether the information dating from January 2020 is still accurate. The text in the article is still "since 17 January 2020" but when it's written just as text there isn't an easy way to track possibly out-of-date statements. Would it be ok if I put the template back? - Simeon (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Simeon, I know what the template does. If you want to use it correctly, then you should use it with as of today, since he still holds the position, as attested by the link to the HN website naming him as the chief of staff, rather than relying on the older reference in the article. That is about when he was appointed, and has no bearing on his current status, which is what the article should reflect. It would be like creating Xi Jinping's article today (assuming that it did not exist), linking a 2013 news article about his becoming president, and writing 'as of 2013, he is the President of the PRC'.... Constantine ✍ 13:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, but my understanding is that this is not about the reference that follows it or the phrase 'as of'. Both with and without the template, the text that's displayed in the article will show "since 17 January 2020" (as since=yes is passed to the template) so this is not a change for the reader. The only difference is that the article itself gets added to the maintenance category so that, say, someone in 2022 might review the articles in Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from January 2020 and might notice that something that started in January 2020 is no longer the case and then they can easily update the article. So it seems we'd get the same article, just with one added benefit for long-term maintenance? - Simeon (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, with the 'since' parameter, it works. For some reason, when I reverted the last change, I did not see the 'since'. Sorry for the inconvenience, I should not have reverted. Will revert myself right away. Constantine ✍ 15:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, as the article initially said "as of" and you improved it by using "since" (in this change) and then I added the template back with since=yes. It looks good now, thanks :) - Simeon (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Actors from Achaia has been nominated for deletion

Category:Actors from Achaia has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

"Theira" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Theira. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 14#Theira until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of RfC discussion at the Flag of Albania page

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Flag of Albania regarding an issue with which you may be interested in and since I've known you to be fair --Havsjö (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

• New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
• 1Lib1Ref
• Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

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) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for what you said for Yoninah! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Muti

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Al-Muti 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 AhmadLX -- AhmadLX (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Muti

The article Al-Muti 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:Al-Muti for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AhmadLX -- AhmadLX (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

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) 02:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Ministers of Transport and Communication of Greece

Category:Ministers of Transport and Communication of Greece has been nominated for speedy renaming to Category:Ministers of Transport and Communications of Greece. Please see WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 11:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thrasyvoulos Tsakalotos.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thrasyvoulos Tsakalotos.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021

• New Library Card designs
• 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Al-Muti

The article Al-Muti you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Al-Muti 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 AhmadLX -- AhmadLX (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick- D and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Peroz I

Hello, I notice that the GA review for this article is not yet finished, having stopped in its tracks a few weeks ago. As I've reviewed HistoryofIran's articles previously, and should be able to work quickly with this editor, would you mind if I picked this one up for you? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cplakidas:@HistoryofIran: No response, so I'll take over this one. Cplakidas, let us know you're OK when you read this. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Amitchell125:@HistoryofIran: sorry for dropping out so suddenly, this was occasioned by a number of unexpected (and partly unpleasant) developments in RL. I never intended to stay away for long, but eventually I needed to take more and more time off to be able to focus on more pressing concerns. I am back, but will likely be less active, at least for now. Thanks Amitchell125 for covering for me in the GAR. I hope both of you are doing fine, and look forward to working with you again. --Constantine ✍ 17:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries, hope all is well. I think I speak for all of Wikipedia when I say it's good that you have returned. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Ditto! Amitchell125 (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi there

You probably don't know me, but I'm a big fan of yours and have been following your work for quite some time. I mean it when I say that your articles are one of the very few things keeping me from blocking Wikipedia on my browser.

Anyway, I was just dropping by to see if you're okay, since you disappeared all of a sudden a couple months ago. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Same here. Big fan. Thanks for your work. Hope you're keeping fine. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan:@Murtaza.aliakbar: thank you very much for your kind words, much appreciated. I was away for some time because I simply had to give total and exclusive focus to RL matters, but am back now. Wikipedia can be a tough and often unrewarding place, but I don't think I will ever give it up completely. I like researching articles and sharing knowledge in the hope that it will be useful to someone somewhere, but I also have the good fortune of having met and worked with some exceptionally dedicated and earnest editors here. Thanks again for your concern, and sorry for being absent for so long :). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Your inactive GA reviews

Cplakidas, I hope you are well. You have two GA reviews that you opened on April 5, five days before your current editing hiatus began. The last time you took a multi-month break, in early 2020, you were gone for nearly four months.

Under the circumstances, I have asked another reviewer to take over Talk:Shalmaneser V/GA1, since it's been two months since the nominator finished addressing the issues you raised in your review. If you have not returned to reviewing in a week's time, I plan to ask that your review page at Talk:Fakhr al-Din II/GA1, which you created and were going to take on "soon" but never started the review, be deleted so that the nomination is available for reviewers participating in the July backlog drive. Thank you for your understanding. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

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) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Despotate of Epirus map

Hello Constantine, there is a dispute involving a map of the Despotate of Epirus you have created, over at Epirus. The discussion is here: [3]. Khirurg (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Hafizi-Isma'ili family tree for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hafizi-Isma'ili family tree is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hafizi-Isma'ili family tree until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021

• Library design improvements continue
• New partnerships
• 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on World War I

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) 12:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

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) 15:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. 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! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 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 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Cplakidas,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

• Library design improvements deployed
• New collections available in English and German
• Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

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) 13:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

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) 14:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. 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 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

County Palatine of Cephalonia and Zakynthos

Hi Cplakidas. I know that you are busy in the real world, but could you fix this article? Cheers. Kardam (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Roman people of the First Punic War

A tag has been placed on Category:Roman people of the First Punic War indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on British conscription and German warship raiders

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) 12:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome

Great to see you editing again, old friend. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Al Ameer, it's good to be back, and to see you too. I hope you are doing well  :) Constantine ✍ 16:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to see your name in my watchlist again. Hope you are doing well. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks LouisAragon, I am well, and hope that you are fine too :). Constantine ✍ 08:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

• On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
• Search tool deployed
• New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Requesting your visit to Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia and article expansion help if you find your interest in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

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) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Apolo1991:, I'd love to participate, but I am not resident in the US. Constantine ✍ 18:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Leo Tornikios

In the article Leo Tornikios, you wrote that he was a nephew of emperor Constantine IX. However according to this book he "was a second cousin on the maternal side" citing Psellos, Chronicon, 6.99 (where Psellos indeed uses the ancient greek words for "cousin" and "maternal" but apparently not for "second", but I don't know how to express the concept of "second cousin" in byzantine greek). I can't access to your sources but in my opinion it should be written that Leo Tornikios was described by Psellos as a maternal cousin of Constantine IX and that some modern authors consider him as a nephew of the emperor (citing the sources). My guess is that Constantine IX could be a "cousin-uncle" of Leo Tornikios, this could explain why some sources consider him as a "cousin" and others as "uncle". Technically the cousins of one's parent are "cousins" (once removed) but they are often considered as "distant uncles". But this is just a conjecture of mine, I would never insert it in the article before finding a source stating that Constantine IX was a cousin once-removed in a higher generation (and so a "cousin-uncle" or "distant uncle") of Leo Tornikios. Could you check out your sources, please?--93.43.166.185 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Exarchs of Africa

Since you are an expert, could you check out the articles Gennadius (7th century) and Eleutherios the Younger, please? The problems are as follows:

• Gennadius (7th century): this article should be completely rewritten since the historicity of this supposed exarch is doubtful. The primary sources, written actually many centuries later, call him "Ḥubāḥiba" or "Jananah"/"Jennaha", and the name "Gennadius" is just a modern hypotesis. Kaegi, in Muslim Expansion and Byzantine Collapse in North Africa, disputed his historicity. According to Kaegi, "One muslim historical tradition transforms multiple but unnamed local north african notables into one mistakenly named "Ḥubāḥiba", that later copysts turn into a Jannaha that some nineteenth-century scholars erroneusly believed was Gennadius" (pp. 191-192). "There was no Byzantine African exarch Gennadius in the reign of Constans II, contrary to some modern assertions" (p. 192). Ḥubāḥiba "may derive from confused rendering of ashabihim, leaders or notables, from the tradition that is recounted by al-Tabari" (p. 192, note 71). It's unlikely that "Ḥubāḥiba was a slurred arabic rendering of Ioannes", who "was cunicularius, spatharius imperialis and magister militum of Byzacena" (p. 192).
• Eleutherios the Younger: what is the source for "the younger"? If you search "Eleutherius the younger" on google books, you will find nothing pertinent. Anyway, the primary sources (being arabic) call him al-Atriyun, and the name Eleutherius is just a modern hypotesis. According to Kaegi (p. 191), "al-Atriyun" could mean "tribune". I suggest removing "the younger" and calling him "Eleutherius (exarch of Africa)" or "Eleutherios (exarch of Africa)".

IMHO the most urgent thing is the renaming of Eleutherios the Younger, a paragraph about Gennadius' historicity would surely improve the quality of the article but it's less urgent.--93.43.166.185 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Family of Darius the Great has been nominated for merging

Category:Family of Darius the Great has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

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) 13:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).