User talk:Ealdgyth
 | I absolutely despise talkpage templates. Please don't use them here. If you do use one, by all the gods, sign it so it archives and put it in its own section! |
| I prefer to keep both sides of my discussions together. If you leave me a message here, I will reply here. But if I left a note on your talk page, feel free to reply there or here, as I'm watching your page for a bit. |
 For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
|
Arbitration Committee proceedings
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WikiCup 2022 September newsletter
[edit]Signups open for The Core Contest
[edit]The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
WikiCup 2023 September newsletter
[edit]The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.
Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and 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 and within 24 hours of the end of the final. 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)
Welcome to the drive!
[edit]Welcome, welcome, welcome Ealdgyth! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.
CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:46, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).
Administrator changes
Technical news
- Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Miscellaneous
- The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]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) 13:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Primary Sources tag at Battle of Mount Scorobas
[edit]Saw this tag in a short article on my watchlist: you tagged it for excessive reliance on primary sources, suggesting that it needed secondary sources. However, the article is two paragraphs long, and each of the paragraphs is cited to three secondary sources: two classical encyclopedias and MRR. While it is certainly likely that additional secondary sources exist, the article seems to be more than adequately supported by secondary sources given its length. The fact that it also cites seven Greek and Roman writers whose accounts are mentioned or cited by the secondary sources shouldn't mean that it needs an equal number of secondary sources—each of which presumably will be based on the same list of primary ones. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I generally don't edit war over tagging - if you want to remove it, I won't be re-adding it immediately back (I've been here long enough that I no longer say "I won't ever" do something again because it's entirely possible in 10 years I'll find myself back on the article and tag it again having forgotten this discussion). Personally, I think that the sourcing you describe is poor and we shouldn't be citing primary sources at all, but it's not a hill I'm going to die on. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The sourcing is poor because the sources cited are poor, or because primary sources are included? It's hard to imagine more authoritative sources than the three I mentioned; they are standard reference works for the field. They apply to whole paragraphs (which is in accordance with Wikipedia's guidance on citations) because their coverage overlaps, and otherwise each of them would need to be cited repeatedly for every sentence. There may well be additional secondary sources to cite, but it is unlikely they will add anything to what is already in the article; they would probably just be cumulative.
- As for the other sources being "primary", I will note two things: first, unlike the definition of "primary" sources used for contemporary articles, these are not usually the accounts of participants or even eyewitnesses to events, but of historians, chroniclers, or antiquarians writing decades or centuries later, using a variety of sources available to them—in some cases perhaps having spoken to eyewitnesses or participants, or reviewing the work of earlier writers who had access to such material.
- Secondly, in the field of classics, readers generally want to know who the Greek and Roman authorities are, and where to find their accounts. In part this is because they're generally accessible, unlike secondary sources, which are often under copyright or stuck in the reference sections of university libraries. The person who proposed the article for deletion last fall claimed to be unable to find any sources using Google Scholar or the Wikipedia Library, which says little about the actual availability of sources, but a great deal about how accessible they are. Classical sources are also where additional details can be gleaned, since reference works tend to include only a brief summary of what is said by Greek and Roman historians, and unlike events in contemporary history, any new descriptions that occur will still be based on these same sources; no new sources are being written. P Aculeius (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)