User talk:Iazyges/Archives/2023/March

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg The Wordsmith
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Fuhghettaboutit · Spinningspark (deceased)



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
 * Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
 * A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

Technical news
 * The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration
 * Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
 * The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
 * A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
 * Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
 * The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter
So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
 * Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
 * 🇺🇸 TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
 * Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna,  Thebiguglyalien,  Sammi Brie,  Trainsandotherthings,  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, 🇮🇩 Juxlos,  Unexpectedlydian,  SounderBruce, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack,  BennyOnTheLoose and  PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. 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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

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. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

GAR coordinator
I have just closed the poll at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, and you are now officially a GAR coordinator. Congratulations, I guess. Happy editing, —Kusma (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023
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) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Harbor of Eutropius
BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In further appreciation

 * Many thanks! Although I do hope you know it's all just a pretext to harass you for various Britishisms ;△) . Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's ok. We Brits are big hearted. We forgive you benighted colonials for what you do to your mother tongue. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 55
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 55, January – February 2023 
 * New bundle partners:
 * Newspapers.com
 * Fold3
 * 1Lib1Ref January report
 * Spotlight: EDS SmartText Searching

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

About reliable sources
Hello. You dismissed my draft because there were no reliable sources: Draft:Roman temple of Augustobriga

I made some changes but I just wanted to ask you something, since I'm kind of new in creating articles and get easily confused by things I don't understand well.

I read all about reliable sources in Wikipedia help, and I think the sources I use are probably the most reliable existing (or at least available). I really wouldn't know how to prove my information with better papers than that. But since my article is about a Spanish manument quite unknown and there's hardly anything about it in English (except for some rough mentions), I wonder if "no reliable sources" could mean "no reliable sources because I understand no Spanish so I can't check them".

I make this question because I just created another article about a historical Spanish character, using even historical original sources, and someone else rejected it for the same reason. Nevertheless, the Spanish version for both articles was approved no problem. That's why I wonder if the problem is the language or the source, because if the problem is the language then there's nothing I can do about it, reliable sources are in Spanish and not in English.

Also, most of the information comes from the same source, so I could either insert tons of references, most of the to that same source (often even to the same page), but I thought that would be clumsy and not helpful, so apart from a few references, I created the section "Main Source" and gave full detail of it, even using a link to an online version of the article hosted on an official page. I thought that could be useful for anyone wanted to expand on the article or check its sources, and at the same time avoiding pestering the reader with usless duplicated references.

But I don't trust my opinion here, since I'm not a savvy in Wikipedia and I want to learn what course of action is considered the correct way in Wikipedia, so I can correct this article and also keep it in mind for the future too.

By the way, thanks for revising my article in the first place. Wikichap33 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have been more clear on the decline: while there are some sources referenced, it's not clear what information in the text is being supported by what sources, and there are some formatting issues. Additions of inline citations, where the content of the article is tied to whatever source supports it, would fix the first issue. While not everything needs to be cited just for the article to be approved per se, having these inline citations is extremely useful for verifying the content of the article, especially as many of them are not in English: if the spot it should be checked for is clearly displayed, it becomes easier to verify the content within, even if it's not in Spanish. Your impression of so I could either insert tons of references, most of the to that same source (often even to the same page) is actually how things should work: each section of writing should have the appropriate sourcing. For an example of this, see Martinus (son of Heraclius), which I wrote. While there are also not many sources for him, and he is decidedly obscure, it is easy to see what text is cited to what source. Additionally, in the temple article there is some writing that is not in the tone and style of Wikipedia: for instance, Wikipedia does not usually reference itself, such as In this article you can see a digital reconstruction of how the original appearance of this temple must have been: Los Mármoles -Raíces de Peralêda. We also try to avoid external links within the text, only really using them to link sources. The Main Source section shouldn't exist, as it's contrary to the way articles should be written: an article should roughly be formatted as: lede (a short summation of the text below, uncited as everything within is supported by the text in the body), the body (text where everything is cited to a source), and the bibliography (where citations and a list of sources should be). Additionally, there is some informal language, but that is not as huge of an issue. If you'll work on citing the material within the article, I can sweep through and fix any formatting issues; once this is done, I see no reason not to accept the article. Thank you for writing the article, it's good to see more Roman writers on the Wiki! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  22:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed reply. I'll do my best to improve the article so it is at least decent for publication and tell you when I finish. Wikichap33 (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have added some new sources and lots of references. Your article about Martinus was very helpful. I decided to use the same short reference format you used. I also improved reference format. I hope it is now acceptable. Thanks for all your tips. Wikichap33 (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

March flowers
Congratulations! I meant to review, but obviously it wasn't needed ;) - Today we remember the 150th birthday of Max Reger, who saw the horrors of a world war right when it began in 1914, while others were still in high patriotic moods --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)