User talk:Unlimitedlead/Archive 1

Elizabeth of York
See the section headed "Elizabeth of York" in Talk:Edward IV of England. "Elizabeth, Queen of England" is very confusing. Deb (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Henry VIII's order of children
Would it be okay if I placed Henry Fitzroy into a separate section for illegitimate children, instead of the current order? On the other hand, it may confuse people who wouldn't understand that illegitimate children don't come before royal children. I see it as a comparable compromise between our two ideas, what do you say? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi,Yourlocallordandsavior, that could work. It would be similar how the list of issue is formatted on the article for James II of England. See for reference. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for the clarification! Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it works in this case because both Mary and Elizabeth were declared illegitimate. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But weren't they retroactively legitimized, if I'm not mistaken, during the reign of Mary? I would parallel this to Henry VII revoking the Titulus Regius, therefore relegitimizing the York children, though I'm not too familiar when Mary did this. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that could be possible because Mary's mother was still alive at Elizabeth's birth, so if Mary was legitimate, Elizabeth wouldn't be and vice versa. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@CeliaHomeford, Mary and Elizabeth were legally illegitimate but this is not usually taken into account because both their mothers were the legal wives to the king. Illegitimacy refers to a situation such as a child born in wedlock, which happened with Henry Fitzroy. In short, only Henry Fitzroy should be categorized as illegitimate for the sake of simplicity, but the way it is currently is alright. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Post signage
Howdy. Why do you chose not to sign your posts, on article talkpages? GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, hi GoodDay! I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so I don't know what that means. Could you help me find out?
 * WP:SIGNATURES, will help you. Rather strange though, as you have (in the past) signed your posts here on your own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's because I was on a different laptop back then. Thanks for the help. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Maria II of Portugal
Hello, I wanted to request if you could help fix the succession box for Maria II of Portugal, it’s extremely confusing and needs to be simplified. I looked at your contributions and it seems that you edit info boxes a lot I do as well but I don’t have the time nor energy to fix that dumpster fire. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks. Orson12345 (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Of course. I will work on it right away. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! Orson12345 (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just finished it, hopefully it looks cleaner now.Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks a lot better, thank you! Orson12345 (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beatrice of England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Countess of Richmond. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Queen?
Hello! What is your source for this and that she was known as Queen of Denmark for all those years? Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Pope Boniface IX: "our beloved daughter in Christ, Margaret, most excellent queen of Denmark, Sweden and Norway". ("Carissime in Christo filie Margarete Dacie Suecie et Norwegie regine illustri".)
 * Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Official website of the Danish royal family: https://denmark.dk/people-and-culture/monarchy The current queen chose to be styled as Margarethe II, recognizing Margaret I as a monarch of Denmark Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That I'll buy, thank you. What the Pope wrote only one year, I will not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * PS Margaret I was dronning Margrethe in Danish due to her already being dowager queen consort of Sweden and Norway. The rest has never been firmly established. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Duke of Orléans
Hello, I wanted to get your opinion about adding info boxes to the Dukes of Orléans. I think it would make it easier for readers to know who there predecessor and successors were and to know how Louis Philippe I was related to the Bourbon monarchs. I’ve tried several times to make this change but they’ve been reverted after a few days. I know Orléans was a peerage but I believe there should be an exception because of the importance of the Dukes of Orléans in French history. Let me know what you think, Thanks.  Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 18:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I wouldn't be opposed to adding infoboxes for some of the Dukes of Orléans, but I would tread carefully. Many dukes died in infancy or later became Kings of France, so they would not need to have one. A handful of adult dukes do currently have an infobox, but a good amount do not yet. I suggest discussing the matter with other editors to see if they agree. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Another editor made a post on the talk page of Philippe I and nobody has responded. So I’m entirely unsure of what to do in this matter. It’s hard to find consensus if nobody responds. I already showed my support for it in the talk page perhaps you could do the same then if no other editors comment we could make the change. Thanks!  Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 18:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I’ll wait a few days to see if anyone responds then I’ll make the change. Have a nice day!  Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 18:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, please take a look at the talk page of Philippe I, Duke of Orléans. I am fine with whatever is decided, but do keep in mind that the dukedom sometimes functioned as a courtesy title, which has the precedent of not having infoboxes. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you think I should only add the info boxes to Gaston threw Louis Philippe I? Since there’s already info boxes for Louis I to Louis II (future Louis XII). Because that’s when the titles were passed from father to son instead of going from person to person as the king saw fit.  Orson12345  (Talk • Contribs) 19:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Alexandre Louis d'Orléans, Duc de Valois for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexandre Louis d'Orléans, Duc de Valois 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 Articles for deletion/Alexandre Louis d'Orléans, Duc de Valois 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 until the discussion has finished. Fram (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Victoire of France (1556) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Victoire of France (1556) 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 Articles for deletion/Victoire of France (1556) 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 until the discussion has finished. Fram (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Philippe I, Duke of Orléans
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Philippe I, Duke of Orléans 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 JeBonSer -- JeBonSer (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Philippe I, Duke of Orléans
The article Philippe I, Duke of Orléans you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Philippe I, Duke of Orléans 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 JeBonSer -- JeBonSer (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Philippe I, Duke of Orléans
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

William, Prince of Wales
Hello! As you have recently been involved in edits to the form of Prince William's name in the first line of his article, I am informing you that I have begin a talk page discussion on the topic. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

GA
Hi Unlimitedlead, I've made several changes to Charles Edward Stuart to improve the wording, punctuation, style, etc. Can you please take another look? Once I get the article to GA, I intend to do a few GA reviews myself as it is encouraged. I notice you currently have Antinous up for GA. I would be happy to do the GA review in return but would need to wait until after you are clear of my review so there is no conflict of interest, assuming another user doesn't take it on beforehand. Let me know if of interest. Coldupnorth (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, Coldupnorth. If you look on the GA Review page, I've left a comment. As for your proposed GA review of Antinous, that would be great. I will do my best to finish up this current GA review quickly but accurately. Thank you for your hard work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. I've added those commas and improved some of the wording again. Coldupnorth (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Would you like me to take a look now, when the hold is over, or after the cleanup user makes their edits (if at all)? Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think it has come a long way in the last few days. Another user has helped with some of the cleanup. I think it is ready for you again. Thank you. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will take a look either today or tomorrow. In the meanwhile, feel free to look over the article a couple more times and correct any punctuation and/or grammar. I would hate it if we both had to spend more time correcting minor issues. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Antinous
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Antinous 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 Coldupnorth -- Coldupnorth (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Antinous
The article Antinous 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:Antinous for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coldupnorth -- Coldupnorth (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Mary, mother of Jesus has an RFC
Mary, mother of Jesus has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Antinous
The article Antinous you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Antinous 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 Coldupnorth -- Coldupnorth (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Coldupnorth Thank you for all your hard work. And thank you for the barnstar. I’ll cherish it forever! Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Circa template
When using Circa, could you please use the year as a parameter instead of moving the date outside of the template? As explained at the template page, this prevents line breaking between the abbreviation and the year. Thanks. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, @Celia Homeford. Thank you for informing me. I'll try to find all the places where I used the template and fix the issue. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Image size
Hi! I have no strong preferences; I only meant to point out the MOS:IMGSIZE guideline in connection to the FA nomination. I now see that I failed to include the link to it, so that is on me. Cheers! Surtsicna (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem! I actually see what you mean now. I just moved the image to the top of the section to avoid conflicts with the text. Thank you, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Holy Ground (song)
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Antinous
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Anti-Hero (song)
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Prince Octavius of Great Britain
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 1 December 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/December 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Wehwalt Thank you for informing me about this! I am honored to have one of my articles appear on the main page. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Bejeweled (song)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Lavender Haze
— Maile (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Pull-up (exercise)
Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Prince Alfred of Great Britain
Congratulations, and thank you today for Prince Octavius of Great Britain, "about Prince Octavius of Great Britain, the thirteenth child of George III. His death deeply affected the King and Queen, and the former even had hallucinations of the prince in his later years. Despite the article's short length, I believe the prose and citations are good enough to constitute a featured article."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2777 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Woah. I don't even know what to say. Thank you so much! Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Household of George III: Planta sisters?
Hi, I came across your recent excellent work on the sons of George III. Did you by any chance come across any information about the Planta family? I just wrote about Andrew Planta and Frederica Planta, who taught English and history to the princes' elder siblings. Her younger sister Margaret "Peggy" Planta is the "Miss Planta" in Fanny Burney's diaries (and knew the two young princes). Andrew taught Italian to the queen. Could you look at your sources and see if there is anything important about these women that I am missing? Thank you! —Kusma (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, @Kusma. Look in the following sources for references to the Plantas:
 * (multiple mentions)
 * (singular mention)
 * (index; mentioned on three pages)
 * (singular mention)
 * (two separate mentions)
 * Your best bet will be A Royal Experiment: The Private Life of King George III. I've provided the pages in the index where you will find mentions of Fredericka Planta and Margaret Planta. Best of luck, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is helpful! Seems like I will definitely have something to write about Margaret when I get to her. —Kusma (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * Thanks Unlimitedlead and well done on your recent articles at FA level. Hope you keep up the fine contributions in 2023! Cheers Coldupnorth (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Co-nomination of articles
Hey Unlimitedlead,

I really appreciate the work you've been putting in with Roman and ″Byzantine Emperors! One thing I would suggest is that, if the people who passed an article through GA, or are the primary authors, are still around, you co-nominate the article with their name for whatever review, as they can't really review the article. For instance, while I've been following your work on Diadumenian and Christopher Lekapenos, and have been quite impressed with it, I would like to be involved with the process, but am not comfortable involving myself as a reviewer, as it doesn't feel fair to sign off on work that is in good portion my own. I'm sure I'm not objective enough on the matter to be a reviewer, but I would be happy to help in remedying any issue that other reviewers would have. Cannot speak for everyone of course, but just wanted to suggest it to you. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  08:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Iazyges Thank you so much for informing me. I didn't even know it was possible to co-nominate A-class reviews! I'll go fix that up. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

December music
We sang Charpentier's delightful Messe de minuit pour Noël today, which was on DYK yesterday, - a first for me, pictured, - thank you for the good wishes, and enjoy the season! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Unlimitedlead!


Happy New Year! Unlimitedlead, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Abishe Thanks, and a happy new year to you too! Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

You may be interested...
in this thread from a few years ago, in which PA discusses some things related to your recent thread there.

On a separate note, I'm really excited to see all your momentum on so many royalty-related articles. If you ever tackle Leo VI the Wise and Constantine VII (both composers) or Henry V (also a composer), I would be happy to contribute a paragraph or two on their music.  Aza24  (talk)   23:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, ! I believe we've talked before (as I recognize your beautiful user page), but I can't quite remember how I know you. Oh well, I suppose this will be our second introduction. Thank you for linking that discussion with Pericles to me. I'm sure I'll find those words of advice handy one day, especially coming from one of my mentors on this site. Regarding your second inquiry, I'll be happy to take you up on that one day! I do have plans to bring Henry V to GA status, but that likely will not occur until mid-2024 at the earliest. However, I do plan on working on England in the Middle Ages between 2023-2024, and that has a lovely section on music I think you'd find enjoyable to work on. Have a wonderful new year, Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The music coverage on the medieval England article is rather strangely conveyed (not even a mention of the Contenance angloise style and John Dunstaple, for instance) and its coupling with literature & drama seems terribly unnecessary, so I would certainly be happy to help there. Happy new year to you as well!  Aza24  (talk)   00:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Theodosius III
Hey Unlimitedlead,

Reaching out to tell you I forgot that Theodosius III was on our collaboration list for May, and nominated it; I've added you as a co-nom. Perhaps we might try Glycerius in May instead? I've been taking a look to see which new sources (or new to me, at least) might be used for it. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  05:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Iazyges Sounds fine to me! I'll get started on helping out with the comments at the Theodosius nomination. Thank you for informing me, Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Thurgood Marshall
-- RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hi Unlimitedlead. Looking through the bibliography for Edward I, I see several which do not seem to me reliable sources. As other editors are obviously happy with them, I do not see any point in arguing about it, so I have decided not to review your articles. Good luck with your editing. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey @Dudley Miles, thanks for letting me know. Can I ask which sources in particular you're concerned about? I may be able to find a replacement for them. I know one of them is probably Weir, but unfortunately, she's the best source of British genealogy I can find :( Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a couple of points with Weir. She writes about the royal family over the whole course of British history, and no one can be an expert on all of it, so you cannot rely on her not making mistakes. You say that she is the best source for genealogy, but genealogy is not Wikipedia's business, which is to be an encyclopedia. A biography will have far more information on genealogy than can be fitted in an encyclopedia article, and if it is not in there it should not be in our article. There is sometimes a problem tracking down a detail in a long book, and my method is to do searches in Google Scholar and Google Books. This usually works but not always. I recently did a search on "King Edgar is not known to have led an army in battle", which is true and important, but nothing turned up so I had to leave it out.

Editors often use books which are available online because they are so old that they are out of copyright, but most of them are not reliable sources. Looking at the ones in your bibliography:
 * Barron. An unknown author over a century old. Not an RS.
 * Burke's Peerage. This is a strange one. It is shown as 1st edition by Bernard Burke. He died in 1892, yet the date is 1973. The early editions were very unreliable. Not an RS.
 * Hughes. Very dated. Not an RS.
 * Stubbs. Very dated but an RS for early historiography.
 * Tout. Ditto.
 * Weir. Not an RS.
 * Watson in further reading. Not an RS.

The basic point, in my opinion, is that as there is 1000 times as much information in modern academic reliable sources as can be fitted in an encyclopedia article, there should be no reason to go outside them. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks @Dudley Miles. I'll start finding replacements for those sources ASAP. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Quick inquiry: Barron is used only once in the article to cite the following statement: "The same view of Edward as a conquering tyrant is presented in Evan Macleod Barron's massive overview of the Scottish War of Independence". Is this an acceptable use? Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Scottish historians' view of Edward is a significant topic. I have read about it but I cannot remember where. However, I cannot find any evidence that Barron was significant. He only gets 32 hits on Google Scholar. It seems to me acceptable as a citation, but the statement itself better deleted, especially as the length of the article has been raised as an issue. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dudley Miles I have removed all unreliable citations and sources. Again, thank you for informing me about this. I like for my articles to be of the highest quality, including in terms of source material. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will try to have a go at reviewing Edward tomorrow, although I will feel a bit more confident with Henry - I have at least read a biography of him. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Edgar, King of England
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Million Award for Edward I of England
Thanks for your work on this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine (son of Theophilos)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constantine (son of Theophilos) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of HistoryofIran -- HistoryofIran (talk) 15:01, 2 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) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine (son of Theophilos)
The article Constantine (son of Theophilos) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constantine (son of Theophilos) for comments about the article, and Talk:Constantine (son of Theophilos)/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of HistoryofIran -- HistoryofIran (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Christopher Lekapenos FAC
Hey Unlimitedlead,

When next you have an opening for co-nom, I was thinking we might run Christopher Lekapenos at FAC, if you agree. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  06:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Iazyges Yes, that sounds good. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to WP:CIII
Hello. Just in case you missed it, there's a task force up at WP:CIII which you may be interested in. There is, of course, no obligation to participate, but if you do, it is very much appreciated.

Best wishes, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Tim O'Doherty Unfortunately, I do not have the time to work on Charles III currently. Good luck with your endavors, however. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, and sorry for the late response. Just in case you missed it, Charles's article is now GA nominated. If you have time, and if you're so inclined, it's on the table. We're just looking to get it there by coronation day, so any help, however minor is appreciated. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tim O'Doherty I am honored that you regard me as someone capable enough to take on such a daunting GA review! Unfortunately, it is a very lengthy, complicated, and significant article so I would rather leave the task to someone more skillful than myself. However, I will say that after a quick skim, I am disheartened to see an excess of duplicate links, a lack of ALT text, and several paragraphs ending without a citation. These things indicate to me that the article is not yet ready for GA, but that is just my personal opinion. They could easily be remedied during the GA process. I look forward to keeping up with the article's progress. Best wishes, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll take your feedback on board, and try to cite statements, remove duplicate links, and add alt texts. I've kept a distant watch on some of your FA reviews - you seem quite comprehensive and thorough, which is badly needed for Charles's article, as recently too many editors have been too loose with adding content. Happily, we managed to scrap around 70,000 bytes, in no small part thanks to the efforts of my fellow CIII participants. The article will need further tightening up, but as I say, if we get it done by the 6th, that'll be brilliant; in that case, Charles III will be to me as Edward I is to you. Thanks, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tim O'Doherty Haha! Edward I was quite the project for me, but I'm not slowing down anytime soon. While I may not be able to help directly with Charles III, I will continue to write and promote articles on English/British royalty, so I think it is nice for us to have a common goal. I sincerely wish you luck on Charles III; however, it will not be easy. Finding a group of focused and determined users to assist you with this task will be of the utmost importance. Additionally, I cannot emphasize enough how important the sources used are; they can make or break an article. For example, the aforementioned Edward I had to undergo a partial redoing of the sources in order to meet FA standards. P.S.- Edward I will be TFA on the day of Charles' coronation! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. An article I created and nominated will hopefully appear as a DYK on the 6th too: Coronation of George II and Caroline. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tim O'Doherty Very nice! I am a little surprised to see that George II: King and Elector by Andrew C. Thompson is not among the sources though, considering that it is the leading academic work on George II. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Might have a look at that - I was more reading coronation-based sources and finding the information there, rather than George II-based sources. I must say that his reign was fascinating though. Credit where it's due, Alansplodge was invaluable in the writing process, particularly on the music, which isn't my strongest subject. The Procession section was nightmarish to write - my idea of hell is trying to correctly interpret the unclear wording in the source, and then trying to look at the table on the street name changes, and how the geography of Westminster has changed since 1727, and finding the right Charles street - horrible. But congrats on the Edward I's being TFA on the day of the coronation. A great achievement, if it was me I'd be chuffed to bits. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tim O'Doherty Congratulations. It is finally done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Unlimitedlead. Apologies for the lack of pragmatism during the first review. I will try to get it to FA over the next year or so (post-1603 monarchs may well become a FT), but I'll be taking a break from the royals for now. I'll try to improve Tony Blair's article for now. Charles is my first GAN, so the road there was bumpy; however, more to come from me on the article-improvement front. Good luck on Henry II of England too, although I still think "HenryIIGospels.jpg" should be used, given the end of the edit war, although that "ain't none of my business". Regards, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Think those things are mostly fixed now. Thanks for pointing them out. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested...
The Core Contest seems right up your alley... designed for participants to improve poor quality but important topics. I got a good $25 via paypal last year (placed 3rd) for work on the History of music article (still working on it!—I'm afraid). Sign ups are here, in case you're interested.

Anyways, nice job with Constantine and do let me know if I can help with the rather poor music section in England in the High Middle Ages.  Aza24  (talk)   00:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Aza24 Thanks for mentioning that. I've looked into the contest but I've decided it's not the right thing for me at this time. In regards to the music section: absolutely! Feel free to do whatever you think would be best, although I would prefer it if we could (for the most part) stick to the sources already in the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!
SN54129 15:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Edward I of England scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 6 May 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/May 6, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Edward I of England

Thank you for the article, introduced: "When Henry III named his son Edward after his favorite saint, no one could have guessed that there would be seven more Edwards to follow. Ultimately, none would compare to the Edward Longshanks, who reformed England's currency, led millitary campaigns against Scotland, and most importantly, ressurected from the dead to star in the 1995 film Braveheart."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

... and today we thank you for Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), introduced: "Have you ever heard of March Madness? Well, it's 1 March (where I live; it's actually 2 March UTC Face-sad.svg) and prepare for a whole lot of madness! PericlesofAthens have been working on this article for a bit (kudos on him for building this article from the ground up and taking it through GA), and after a depressing FA nomination in 2018, we believe things will go smoother this time around. Read this article, and you'll discover that Alexander isn't the only great thing about Macedon..."! - I had a good story on coronation day: a Te Deum we sang that day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 9 May 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/May 9, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Constantine (son of Theophilos)
Aoidh (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Image reviews
My boilerplate checklist for image reviews is "All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Gog the Mild, many thanks for the guide; I should probably use it for my own nominations as well. Takes me back to the days when I used px instead of upright! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The main problems I have are with non-free use rationales and freedom of panorama issues. For the latter I find the list here is helpful.
 * More generally, immediately before nominating any article for GAN or FAC I run it through this checklist to try and catch the errors I commonly make. When this works perfectly it just leaves all of the errors I uncommonly make. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Prince Alfred of Great Britain
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 June 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/June 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "This article is about Prince Alfred of Great Britain, the fourteenth child of George III. Recently, I was able to promote Alfred's brother Octavius to FA status, and since I have already received a plethora of helpful feedback and gathered sources for said article, I thought I might as well improve that of Alfred, too. Despite promising Johnbod that my next FA nomination would be more substantial, I thought it would be prudent to work on this short article before I move on to anything too serious. I apologize for the article's short length in advance, however, the poor prince did pass at the age of one."! - I like today's Main page, and here's why ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:


 * Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
 * Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
 * Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
 * BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie,  Thebiguglyalien,  MyCatIsAChonk,  PCN02WPS, and  AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Should I delete the map I made?
Should I delete the map I made? &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Lingzhi.Renascence I do not recommend that. After all, you spent some time and effort on it; it would be a shame to delete it now. Plus, in case the new map does not work, we can use yours. Thank you again for your work! Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I learned some useful things while doing it, anyhow. Later... &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of England in the High Middle Ages
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article England in the High Middle Ages 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of England in the High Middle Ages
The article England in the High Middle Ages you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:England in the High Middle Ages for comments about the article, and Talk:England in the High Middle Ages/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

TFA
Congrats on Edward I of England appearing as TFA today. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Unclear antecedent
You reverted an edit made on grounds of an unclear antecedent with "'After suppressing a minor conflict in Wales in 1276–77, Edward responded to a second one in 1282–83 with its conquest': It is not unclear."

A pronoun should refer to the preceding noun (the antecedent, which means "going before"). Here, the pronoun in question is "its". The preceding noun is "one", itself a reference to "conflict". However, the "its" actually refers to Wales (what was conquered), which is not the preceding noun. Hence the insertion of another noun to break the bad antecedent. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Piledhigheranddeeper I see your point. Personally I do not see the confusion but you should go ahead and do as you see fit. I still am not sure if Wales could be called a "country" here, though. Apologies. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What would you prefer to call it? Principality?  Land? Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly I have no idea. The safest option would be to call it either "Wales" or "it". Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Will cogitate. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
You reverted my two edits. You wrote, "Use of however; NPOV". I'm afraid this is too cryptic for me. Would you please explain what's wrong with "however" and what you mean by NPOV? (I know what NPOV means. I don't know what you mean.  I expressed no POV.)  Thank you.

To explain my edits: "Rebut" seems correct, since "refute" means a successful rebuttal and the issue remains unresolved, according to the same sentence. "Although" suggests that De Francisci advanced his idea after and in the face of non-resolution of the issue, while "however" suggests that despite his idea, the issue remains unresolved; it seemed clear to me that the latter was intended. Zaslav (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my brain was a mess while doing that. I meant OR, not POV. During the FA nom, someone objected to the use of "however" (seemingly a taboo in Wikipedia) as its severity suggests OR. The "rebut" seems good, though. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Henry II of England
Are you sure that there is a rule against using ancestry charts in articles on English and British monarchs? It appears that all of Henry's successors (up to Charles III), his predecessor Stephen, mother Matilda, and grandfather Henry I all have family or genealogy charts in their articles. Векочел (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Of course there is not a "rule", just a general sense of taboo. Such charts that you mentioned are generally allowed, it's just the ahnentafels that are strongly discouraged. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The only Byzantine award worth having

 * You flatter me, Gog. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Off you go shoe shopping. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Your JA nomination of Edward I of England
The Edward I of England article has been imported to WikiJournal Preprints/Edward I of England (per WP:JAN). Whenever you're ready to proceed:


 * 1) Fill in the  https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_Preprints/Edward I of England?veaction=edit  at the top (often easiest in VisualEditor)
 * 2) Fill in the authorship declaration form to submit as ready for external peer review to be organised.

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 12:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Evolution and evolvability Thanks for helping me; all steps have been completed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for England in the High Middle Ages
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pope Sisinnius
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pope Sisinnius 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Pbritti -- Pbritti (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Henry VI of England
I am now seriously considering upgrading Henry VI's article, to GA or FA or whatever it may be (even B-Class would be something). I would like to aim for FA; in that case, it would be my first. Given my inexperience, I wondered if you'd have any helpful advice on how to work it up to that level, as you've become very proficient in that regard. I've got some sources assembled and have a rough plan on how to tackle the worst bits of the article, but I don't want to be ripping the article apart without at least some level of competence. Best, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Tim O'Doherty You flatter me! My advice to you is to blow it up in a sandbox. Delete everything and start from scratch, first consulting the ODNB for a general skeleton of the article. I find that the ODNB is quite authoritative and recent. The next best course of action would be to consult the Yale biography written by Bertram Wolffe; it is perhaps the best academic work on Henry VI at the moment. Additional information should be pulled from Christopher Allmand's Henry V and Charles Ross' Edward IV. Other information can be found in Shaping the Nation: England, 1360-1461 by G. L. Harriss, and of course feel free to add your own sources. For this article specifically, I would actually take it to PR (I have some folks I can call on for that) first, then GA, then ACR, and finally FA. An additional PR may be needed down the line. If you'd like, I can assist with writing the article; perhaps we could split it up in a sandbox (I probably would be best writing about the economy and religion of Henry's reign). I would be honored to take this to FA with you someday (as I stated earlier though, that would probably be a few months from now). Cheers and good luck, Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. I'll go for one of my sandboxes (sorry Tony, you're out) and develop it there. I'll look at the ODNB shortly, and re-jig the arrangement of the article to fit more closely with that. Hoping to clean it up enough so that there aren't any orange tags left, and the prose isn't anything that PR will roll its eyes at. Over the next few days, I'll compile some sources here to flesh out the article's bibliography, and try to draft some alt text and properly format the images; baby steps for now. I'll look at your suggested sources as well. If you haven't checked it out, there's a great book on the English economy I've got sitting on my shelf: "The economic history of England" by E. Lipson; found a digitised version here, on the Internet Archive. Per your suggestion, I'll go to GA first, and then to A and FA-class. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Moved the sandbox's content here, and made a very rough skeleton that will be subject to addition and change. I can't access the Yale biography in full, only the preview on Google Books, so if you know of any digitised copy that is free or moderately cheap, just let me know. I've consulted Henry V, Edward IV and Shaping the Nation; additionally, I've added few more sources here. Tomorrow, I'll attempt to verify some of the unsourced statements. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We progress. I've found eleven sources, and plan on finding some more soon. Right now, I'm taking it section-by-section; still on Henry's early life and the protectorate. I've been "phasing out" the lower-quality sources and replacing them with academic ones, and copyediting the text somewhat. The only stumbling block is that I can't find any source at all for this statement: "His mother, the 20-year-old Catherine of Valois, was viewed with considerable suspicion by English nobles as Charles VI's daughter, and was prevented from playing a full role in her son's upbringing". It may well be true, but I've come across no source for it. Regrettably, it may have to be axed. Cordially, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pope Sisinnius
The article Pope Sisinnius you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pope Sisinnius for comments about the article, and Talk:Pope Sisinnius/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Pbritti -- Pbritti (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pope John XIV
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pope John XIV 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Henry II FA
Congratulations on getting Henry II to FA and thanks also for your work on Princes Alfred and Octavius. Have you thought about working on Richard the Lionheart's article? Векочел (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Векочел Yes, I have started work on Richard, but I do not expect to be finished for another year or two. Best wishes, Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Seconding those congratulations - well done! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ermengard of Italy
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ermengard of Italy 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

:)

 * Thanks @AirshipJungleman29 for the kind words. I do not plan on slowing down anytime soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Pope Sisinnius
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ermengard of Italy
The article Ermengard of Italy 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:Ermengard of Italy and Talk:Ermengard of Italy/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pope John XIV
The article Pope John XIV 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:Pope John XIV and Talk:Pope John XIV/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Sisinnius and Constantine : brothers or not ?
Hi Unlimitedlead. I added the information that Sisinius was a brother of Constantine after noticing in the article about Constantine where he was refered to as his brother, so it felt logical to put that on the other side too. I used Google and found lots of documents actually stating that they were brothers. I tried to find documents where this was contradicted, or at least doubted, but came up empty. Mvdejong (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The RS I used to construct the article do not mention this. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible GA on my hands
Hello again, UL - I've just 4x expanded an article on Alistair Darling's pet as a mini-project; looking at it, I'm wondering if I can get away with a GA nomination. There is a precedent for it, given its parent article and her predecessor are FLs and GAs, respectively. It's certainly a silly little article, but I see it meeting the criteria, with the exception of the lead image not having alt text. Good luck on your international travels; regards, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Tim O'Doherty I think it could be worth a shot, although it is quite short in comparison to Humphrey (cat); perhaps additional research and expansion is needed (if possible). Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I know it is relatively small compared to Humphrey's article, although Humphrey is, in the UK at least, much better-known, and known for the circumstances around Cherie Blair's defenestration of him. I've scoured the internet (Wikipedia Library, Google news, Internet Archive etc.) for good sources, and I think I've got about all of them, and think I've produced the best possible product from them (we don't even know for certain where she was born or where she died); however, I'm not all that invested in it, as it was a 24-hour bit of fun, and Henry VI still remains my main project. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nominated. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Passed. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Pope
I now realise that my edit was incorrect, as it suggested that he either had to approve or reject them en masse, but I don't think "of which he could approve or reject" is grammatically correct as the clause is missing a subject. I think "each of which he could...." or "any of which he could....." would work, but I think the extra word is definitely needed to make it work grammatically..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @ChrisTheDude Thanks for pointing that out. I agree, and I will fix the problem as soon as I can, but I am at the airport right now. Apologies for the inconvenience. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Have a safe flight! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Chris. I have tried fixing the sentence; if you feel like any further revisions are necessary, I trust your judgment. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)