User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 63
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ealdgyth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | → | Archive 70 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Bede
Hi Ealdgyth. I notice that user:Le Deluge has changed Category:English biblical scholars to Category:British biblical scholars. Whilst I agree with getting rid of red links, it seems unfortunate to move Bede from English (which he was) into British (which he certainly wasn't). Obviously in modern terms he was a UK citizen living in that part of Great Britain known as England; but should modern terms be employed for an 8th C figure? He was Anglo-Saxon ("English") culturally and religiously, rather than Celtic ("British"). Is this worth chasing and what do you think? Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- well, technically he's Northumbrian, but he's certainly not British. I usually just ignore categories, because quite honestly I doubt one reader in a hundred even knows we HAVE vategories, much less cares...if it bugs you enough I'm glad to support you changing it, but I'm not bothered enough to worry about it while I'm out of town....Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Fair point about Northumbrian, though I must confess to often regarding then as simply a variant of English, and that's after having lived in the area for 7 years back in the '70s. I'll follow your lead on this and let it lie however. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Martin of Sheffield: The Northumbria thing would have been my formal response - arguably one of the greatest achievements of England and Scotland was to wipe out the memory of a kingdom that was at least their equal if not their superior at this time. Saying Bede is English is like saying Roger Federer or Johan Cruyff are German. But really it comes down to the compromises that result from the category system's first duty to be useful rather than 100% accurate. It's the job of the articles to be accurate, but for the category system things like predictability and consistency are much more important. So compromises are needed if we're not to get totally tied up in knots, frustrating though that may be for specialists like yourselves who (rightly) care about these things.
The UK is relatively simple in this regard but think of the forerunners of modern Germany, Italy or India. A non-specialist in Renaissance science would look for Galileo under Category:Italian astronomers - even though "Italy" didn't exist until 300 years after his death. But it's a bit unreasonable to expect a non-specialist to know whether he lived in the Duchy of Florence, Tuscany, the Duchy of Parma, the Republic of Lucca etc (indeed, I doubt that 90% of Wikipedia readers are even aware they existed), and ethnically he could have been Lombard, Norman etc. A more recent example is Albert Einstein, technically he was born a Württemberg-ian. So the category system uses "Italian" to mean "from somewhere roughly equivalent to modern Italy, without getting too bogged down in the detailed politics or ethnicity" - and so it is with "British" too.
One thing the UK does suffer from is home-nation nationalists aggressively WP:OVERCATegorising British people. The home nations are WP:DEFINING for some occupations like footballers, but people tend to assume that means Category:British chiropractors needs to be subdivided too. So in general I tend to shy away from sub-British categorisation unless it's obviously defining or the category needs it to cope with overpopulation. I hope that clears things up a bit?Le Deluge (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)- In this context I'm not concerned about the modern nations, I was using English in the sense of Angles/Saxons/Jutes/WhatHaveYou in contradistinction to (Ancient) British, that is "Celtic". Moving Bede from the Anglo-Saxon world to the Celtic world just seemed a little odd; a bit like calling the Montaukett New Yorkers. Your point about the modern nations as geographic descriptors is a fair one however and having flagged it up am happy to go with the opinion of an acknowledged expert. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Martin of Sheffield: No worries, and I appreciate the fact that you care. I share the same pain over "American" and "United States" being applied to just one country both in the category system and elsewhere, but that battle is lost. Even if it means your Montaukett are "native Americans" which is a whole heap of contradictions in two words. But such are the joys of the English language - qv physicists despair at the common usage of "inertia" and "momentum". Given that the battle for "British" is lost to the modern sense, without wanting to open a whole oil drum of worms might I suggest a convention of using "Brittonic" as a demonym for the ancient lot when precision is important? Le Deluge (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- In this context I'm not concerned about the modern nations, I was using English in the sense of Angles/Saxons/Jutes/WhatHaveYou in contradistinction to (Ancient) British, that is "Celtic". Moving Bede from the Anglo-Saxon world to the Celtic world just seemed a little odd; a bit like calling the Montaukett New Yorkers. Your point about the modern nations as geographic descriptors is a fair one however and having flagged it up am happy to go with the opinion of an acknowledged expert. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Martin of Sheffield: The Northumbria thing would have been my formal response - arguably one of the greatest achievements of England and Scotland was to wipe out the memory of a kingdom that was at least their equal if not their superior at this time. Saying Bede is English is like saying Roger Federer or Johan Cruyff are German. But really it comes down to the compromises that result from the category system's first duty to be useful rather than 100% accurate. It's the job of the articles to be accurate, but for the category system things like predictability and consistency are much more important. So compromises are needed if we're not to get totally tied up in knots, frustrating though that may be for specialists like yourselves who (rightly) care about these things.
- Fair point about Northumbrian, though I must confess to often regarding then as simply a variant of English, and that's after having lived in the area for 7 years back in the '70s. I'll follow your lead on this and let it lie however. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Lead FAC
Thank you for your comment at WT:FAC. May I ask you to specify what claims do you think need to be referenced? You can list them here or you can add {{cn}} tags throughout the article -- either is fine. Thank you.
It will be especially great if we could use your pair of eyes for the reference credibility check ("And I'm not convinced on some of the websites used as sources either"). I think what we have by now must be okay, but I'll love to see if I'm wrong in any way.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
Administrator changes
Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi
Guideline and policy news
- A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
- AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
- Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
- The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.
Technical news
- A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
- Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
- A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:
Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.
The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.
So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
While I did not add additional comments since January 2017, I had been following the Acne FAC. Though you did not participate this time, I would be excited to review an Acne FAC alongside you. Only if you're interested, next time it goes up for a FAC please email me and I will post a review again. (just fyi: I am putting a similar note on a few user pages) --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
FAC
Smash!
You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerDurden8823 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Talk page stalkers....
Can anyone see a good DYK hook in Sibyl of Falaise, which is my contribution to International Women's Day.... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- If I've understood it correctly: Did you know ... that Sibyl of Falaise, grandmother of one of Thomas Becket's murderers, may have been a daughter of King Henry I? SarahSV (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Acne listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, did you want to return to this review, or should I put out a call for a new reviewer. Please let me know. Many thanks, and I'm sorry if the process has been unpleasant. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Egbert
The TV show may not be accurate, but the depiction of a person in popular culture is always a valid addition to any article. There are umpteen articles that deal with a person's depiction in popular culture. Whether that depiction is accurate or not is irrelevant. It is perfectly valid to cover such depictions, whether they are accurate or not. Your persistent deletions of my contributions may qualify as disruptive editing, thank you very much.
Sardaka (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- This is discussed on the talk page for Egbert and three editors disagree with you. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Make that four.[1] Nortonius (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hugh de Neville for TFA
Hi Ealdgyth. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the Hugh de Neville article, which you nominated at FAC, has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 14, 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 14, 2017. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for Hugh de Neville, a "royal servant who served King John... and earned a nasty name in history for it"! - As for Sybil (above): how about ... that Sibyl of Falaise, a "nepta" (either "niece" or "kinswoman") of Henry I of England, was possibly his bastard child, or his brother's? - I favour to say something about the woman in question, but there's not much that we know, obviously. - My contribution to the day was an opera singer who premiered scandalous works, - with hope of women in a title, written by an expressionist artist and staged by a Bauhaus artist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to let you know...
Hi, Ealdgyth - I got a wild hair to do some editing, so I've been expanding some of our horse articles, and doing a bit of copy editing. If you notice the increased activity on your Watch List, that's what's happening. Hope all is well with you and yours!! 
Atsme📞📧 03:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).
Administrator changes
- TheDJ
- Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott
Guideline and policy news
- Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
- The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
- An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
- After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.
Technical news
- After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
- Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Access requests....
Anyone have the following?
- Wiley Online - Historical Research 1992 for William Meschin Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- You have email. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you! Not that it had anything useful but ...Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alan de Neville (forester), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marlborough. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Giving FA authors an explicit right of veto from TFA appearances
As I've mentioned you at WT:TFA in a discussion on this point, a quick note to point you in the direction of the discussion, in case the ping doesn't work. BencherliteTalk 07:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Core Contest
Ouch! Yes, it is pretty terrible. I had in mind something that gets over twice as many views. But maybe this would build up more views if it was better - I think there is an effect from student word of mouth, or even teachers. What are these "entries"? Actually, the super-crap Renaissance art gets a lot more than H of A too. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Botticelli would be cool. Of course The arts is really awful also. I do have to laugh a the low page views some of these "vital 1" or "vital 2" articles get... And why the HECK is Frida Kahlo a "vital 3" article on the level with the others (she does get over 9000 views a day though)? Of course Picasso gets close to 9000 page views a day, Vinci gets over 12,000,
- I think I'm leaning towards working on History of the world, even though it gets less page views. Then I think I'll do Harold Godwinson, even though he doesn't rate on the "vital article" listings, it still gets decent page views per day. I might also work on Reformation, we'll see. But these three will probably get my main effort. Books are already being assembled. Put in a big ILL order to get stuff for the first article. Luckily, I already have good bits on the Reformation and Harold...Ealdgyth - Talk 21:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reformation would be a bit of a nightmare I'd think, even though it is really History of the Reformation, with remarkably little theology, but also seems a sociology-free zone. I don't worry at all about the "vital" levels, but I do very much look at page views. I did The Last Judgment (Michelangelo) expanded for DYK, main page yesterday - that gets over 1K views just about every day. Best for Easter! Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)