User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 83
 | 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 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | → | Archive 90 |
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) 00:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 23, 2020. 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/September 23, 2020. You know the drill. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 23
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- First Geneva Convention
- added a link pointing to French Empire
- Geneva Conventions
- added a link pointing to French Empire
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Yet another great Ealdgyth article. Katiehawks (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC) |
Apologies for double ping!
Hi Ealdgyth. I think I may have double pinged you (and the other co-noms) yesterday. Apologies for that! I appreciate you allowing me to open another FAC. I do have a second FAC open (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2020 Tour Championship/archive1), which is also pretty close (just need to wrap up the final reviewers). Any idea if I should wait, or open up another FAC on this one as well?
- No, let's not overwhelm things. Wait for one to be settled (I hope to make passes today... assuming the weather doesn't bork my satellite internet). --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- No issues. Thought I'd ask :). The weather has been pretty good here - so that usually means rain is incoming. Hope you are well. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.
Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
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) 23:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
"Medieval" vs "medieval"
Ealdgyth, I figured with all your work on the Middle Ages you might have some insight. I'm working on List of Medieval composers and recently capitalized Medieval in the title but I notice that many Medieval lists (e.g. List of medieval bestiaries, List of medieval Gaue, List of medieval European scientists etc.) are all lowercase. My reason for moving the composer list was because of lists like List of Renaissance composers, List of Renaissance structures, List of Renaissance figures. Shouldn't the other Medieval lists be capitalized? Best - Aza24 (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to just @SMcCandlish: to explain this one...heh. --Ealdgyth (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's a reasonable position that "medieval" is right for the straight time period, but "Medieval" appropriate for styles/movements in the arts. I'm not sure how sound SMcCandlish is on this - perhaps we'll see. Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Frankly, WP is simply inconsistent on this stuff. Arts (including music) "movements" – and there's no clear definition of that – have been treated as capitalizable, i.e. as somehow exempt from MOS:GENRE, simply because the editors who dominate those topics prefer to capitalize them, and the rest of the editorial pool has not cared enough to debate it with them in any detail. It's a lot like how vernacular names of bird species were capitalized on Wikipedia for about a decade. The argument in favor of "Medieval" and "Classical" and "Romantic" and "Art Nouveau" in the humanities is that most reliable sources on the topic capitalize them. But this is likely true of most genres as well (the entertainment press routinely capitalize film/TV, fiction, and popular music genres and styles). So, it's the same WP:Specialized-style fallacy. And it produces some absurdities, like Art Deco and Art Nouveau, which are French terms and not capitalized in French. Next, "medieval" is a time period even in the arts; it is not an arts movement. The concept of an arts movement did not even exist until much later.
All that said, I don't think now is good time to propose a change or a sweeping conformity move; our editors have been cooped up for a long time and everyone is short-tempered, and more apt that usual to (especially given degradation of off-site public discourse) engage in protracted and uncivil battlegrounding over nitpicks, all the more so if they feel something "traditional" is at stake vs. arguments that something (especially something that pertains primarily to European history) is being "privileged" in a biased manner over other topics. It's probably the best idea to continue following "micro-consistencies", of capitalizing all the supposed arts movements, including Medieval, and to lower-case general time periods otherwise, including medieval.
However, even that distinction is not very consistently applied. We're routinely capitalizing "Industrial Revolution" despite it not being a revolution in the usual sense (it's a metaphor not a description). Off-site sources are all over the map on things like this (e.g. some will capitalize "Antiquity" and "Ancient Rome" and even "Pre-History", while others more sensibly will provide "antiquity" and "ancient Rome" and "pre-history"). There seems to be a vague "I know it when I see it" sense that a short historical time period with major impact on humanity (something that can be thought of as kind of a extended event, on a broad enough timeline) should be capitalized. But we're not programmatic about it. E.g.: Norman conquest of England, but the Renaissance, and cf. all the debate about the African-American civil rights movement. An extra bit of confusion is that bio-geological and anthropological epochs are capitalized by near-universal convention: Cenozoic, Neolithic. This is due to actual scientific standards (it's a bit like Genusname speciesname format – italics plus a capitalized genus – in binomial nomenclature). Regardless of all these concerns, it's clear that the medieval period a.k.a. the middle ages, constitutes a very broad time period, and it very often not capitalized in sources, so it should not be capitalized on Wikipedia outside the context of arts "movements", otherwise people are going to want to start capitalizing everything semi-comparable to it (Victorian Era, Ancient Greece, Pharaonic Age – and if you search for pharaonic in our articles, you'll find that whether it's capitalized or not is veering around from article to article already).
So do your best to exercise good judgment. If nothing else, just make sure usage is consistent within the same article. WP:THEREISNODEADLINE, and most of these inter-article and inter-category inconsistencies have been here for years.
PS: If you're certain that you wan to try moving some articles around, I would strongly suggest starting one at a time, or just a few that are all of a like sort. I (and other WP:RM regulars like Dicklyon) have learned the hard way that if you just take a whole bunch of arguably over-capitalized articles and nominate them for lower-casing, the mass-move nomination is likely to fail because this editor will have an objection to some particular article you've included, and that editor will object to another for a different reason, and a third will have an issue with yet another member of the list, eroding support for the moves as a group, even if none of those editors agree with each other about their particular peccadilloes.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)- So not very sound then.... If you don't capitalize some art terms like impressionist and modern you quickly create genuine ambiguities or mistakes in meaning. "Medieval music" is treated as a distinct movement/period in a way that "medieval art" or "medieval architecture" aren't (if only because they have Romanesque, Gothic & so on, which aren't generally applied to music). That "The concept of an arts movement did not even exist until much later" is entirely and totally beside the point. "Middle Ages" is almost always capitalized in sources on all subjects - but medieval generally isn't. I think "Medieval music" is fine, but (rather illogically) I'd probably go with List of medieval composers myself. There is also an ENGVAR issue in edge cases, with BE having a stronger preference for caps. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is true that Medieval music is actually a somewhat specifically defined movement, rather than a general period. What I mean is it's not as simple as any music produced during the Middle Ages, fortunately or not. Any suggestion of that is more or less OR, since all of the Medieval music books I have are called "Medieval music" but only discuss (Western) European Medieval music (You'll find this online too if you just search "Medieval music"), so in this sense Medieval music is the first era/movement of Western classical/art music, not a term for describing music during the Middle ages. In fact, Eastern European music (Byzantine music) is also excluded – something which I originally thought was systematic bias, but is really because there are almost no parallels in notation, style or theory (and there's also the fact of Eastern church vs Catholic/Protestant). I'm actually working on a List of Byzantine composers because I had to seperate it from the List of Medieval composers, since they're two separate entities entirely. Byzantine music, Islamic music, even something like Song Dynasty music aren't Medieval music in the normal use of the term, since they remained virtually completely separate in style during and after the "Middle ages time period" – Machaut is a predecessor to Dufay in a way that John of Damascus isn't. Aza24 (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- So not very sound then.... If you don't capitalize some art terms like impressionist and modern you quickly create genuine ambiguities or mistakes in meaning. "Medieval music" is treated as a distinct movement/period in a way that "medieval art" or "medieval architecture" aren't (if only because they have Romanesque, Gothic & so on, which aren't generally applied to music). That "The concept of an arts movement did not even exist until much later" is entirely and totally beside the point. "Middle Ages" is almost always capitalized in sources on all subjects - but medieval generally isn't. I think "Medieval music" is fine, but (rather illogically) I'd probably go with List of medieval composers myself. There is also an ENGVAR issue in edge cases, with BE having a stronger preference for caps. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Frankly, WP is simply inconsistent on this stuff. Arts (including music) "movements" – and there's no clear definition of that – have been treated as capitalizable, i.e. as somehow exempt from MOS:GENRE, simply because the editors who dominate those topics prefer to capitalize them, and the rest of the editorial pool has not cared enough to debate it with them in any detail. It's a lot like how vernacular names of bird species were capitalized on Wikipedia for about a decade. The argument in favor of "Medieval" and "Classical" and "Romantic" and "Art Nouveau" in the humanities is that most reliable sources on the topic capitalize them. But this is likely true of most genres as well (the entertainment press routinely capitalize film/TV, fiction, and popular music genres and styles). So, it's the same WP:Specialized-style fallacy. And it produces some absurdities, like Art Deco and Art Nouveau, which are French terms and not capitalized in French. Next, "medieval" is a time period even in the arts; it is not an arts movement. The concept of an arts movement did not even exist until much later.
FAC
I have two questions... besides the image review (which is ongoing) for Vicente, do I need to get any additional reviews? Also, would it be okay for me to nominate another article? NoahTalk 21:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, I have two FACs which just need source/image reviews (and the sources are no-brainers), both have at least three supports. Can I nominate another? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- LEt's not go into more than two noms ... I'm going to try to find time to do some source reviews myself in the next week - but this is the busy time for my RL work so ... its hard to get the time together. --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well one's my own nom and one's a co-nom. Both have at last three supports. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- In my case, both the current nom and the one I am currently requesting permission for are solo articles. NoahTalk 22:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well one's my own nom and one's a co-nom. Both have at last three supports. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- LEt's not go into more than two noms ... I'm going to try to find time to do some source reviews myself in the next week - but this is the busy time for my RL work so ... its hard to get the time together. --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
et al
Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria, is it OK to use et al in a short-form citation when there are only two authors or must they both be listed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's fine if you do it consistently and if the work being cited can be clearly identified (ie don't use Smith et al for both Smith & Wood and Smith & Green). Personally I'm not sure why you'd want to do that, but you can. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thx, Nikki! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 9 September 2020 (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) 23:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
William Cragh scheduled for TFA
On October 23, 2020... When you do the blurb, feel free to change the image if you think another is better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you today for Ealdred, an "archbishop in England during the end of Edward the Confessor's reign and the start of William the Conquerors. Ealdred crowned Billy Boy, as well as being one of the more well traveled bishops of his time, having visited Germany, Hungary, France, Rome and Jerusalem. Not a terribly religious man, he's another on of those "Bad-boy bishops" although not nearly so bad as Stigand."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn FAC
Hi Ealdgyth. A nominator is asking for a FAC to be closed as "withdrawn" . Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Who_by_Numbers_Tour/archive1. All the best. Graham Beards (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Actioned, tks Graham. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Question
Hi Ealdgyth ~ hope you are well (and still currently active!). I'm just looking for a second set of eyes to ensure i'm not doing the wrong thing, if you don't mind. This user ~ 87.4.59.27 ~ has recently been taking a great interest in people's birthnames, bolding them in places other than the lead paragraph, which i believe is not correct. I have reverted them quite a few times, but i'm beginning to second guess myself. If you have time, would you mind taking a brief look at their contributions and seeing if i'm entirely wrong and they are actually helpful? Thanks; happy days, LindsayHello 15:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
Administrator changes
Ajpolino • LuK3
Jackmcbarn
Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
Technical news
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
Arbitration
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
Miscellaneous
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
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) 00:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Harthacnut
Why should I take it to the talk page? Beside that unfortunate mix-up Godwin(earl of Wessex) house of Wessex, there is nothing really objectively wrong with the line of historicity in the passage I wrote. There has in the the obstruction by the three editors been nothing but dismissals and no constructive progress. So why should I as a editor strive to add encyclopaedic content? Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- because discussion of content that has been reverted by three different editors should take place on the article talk page. --Ealdgyth (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Just a note...
I'm tired, under a severe time crunch, and about sick of the behavior at FAC where it seems that it's more fun to "battle" than to actually discuss like adults. I'm about sick of being involved with FAC which seems to eat ALL my wiki time and only cause me ulcers. If you want a mommy for FAC.. find someone else. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for those two talk page posts. I hope they work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I hate to see this - might it be worth just closing the discussion (as it is now clearly veered from the original topic, and more into a full argument over the benefits of FAC going forward). Right now, we aren't helping anyone. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- They worked, but only after I saw Georgia had slyly completely changed the meaning of her posts without apology. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I hate to see this - might it be worth just closing the discussion (as it is now clearly veered from the original topic, and more into a full argument over the benefits of FAC going forward). Right now, we aren't helping anyone. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:59, 16 October 2020 (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) 23:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)