User talk:Carcharoth

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. For the fictional wolf of the same name, see Carcharoth.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carcharoth.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), and Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts at tidying the article are much appreciated. However, can I request that further images are not added without some discussion? Additional images should only be used if they add something, e.g. the Butler House stones - an excellent addition. The O'Connell picture badly overcrowded the text and was of marginal relevance. There are probably dozens of images that could go into the article, but not at the expense of drowning the text; we need to be careful. Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Sorry, just seen your posts to the talkpage where you have raised issues relating to images, but my main point remains: we need to be careful what we add. Some of the images you've produced might be used instead, rather than in addition, to those presently in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are over-reacting to the addition of a single image. You disagreed and removed it - that is fine. As you say, the article talk page is the place to discuss it. I did just notice that it was you who pointed out at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions a problematic image - the images uploaded by that user are problematic and will need to go, but hopefully it will be possible to find suitable replacements. Carcharoth (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mail call! Scartol • Tok 00:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, this looks fairly simple. Most of the worst damage is in the sky. The healing brush will get the spots, the clone stamp (with fuzzy edge) can help with the right side. Of the small part of right side that has significant details, a low-exposure burn tool will help darken parts that have faded. Some cropping will be needed as there is aroundm - well, I'm not great at eyeballing pixel count, but probably around a 10-20 pixel strip on the right with no data; any small intrusions with no data can be reconstructed with clonestamp. To avoid deleting parts of the image, I'd be inclined to try and fill in the chunks after rotation, to avoid deleting parts. I'd try to get a higher resolution scan first, though. One exists. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Experimentally I have replaced the probably dodgy 1927 infobox image with an older (1830) picture. What do you think? This image includes your crop File:Nelson's Pillar plinth detail.jpg, though without the detail. I tried your crop in the text, but it shows rather pallidly and I'm not sure. Your crop of the new entrance, however, looks very well I think – again, your thoughts, please. Brianboulton (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes look good. Thanks for letting me know. Carcharoth (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also looked at the Paula Murphy source again. While I still believe there is little new information there, I agree with you that it would be good to cite a high-quality academic source. So I've changed a couple of the Fallon/Kennedy citations to Murphy. I've also added a brief quote from the book, concerning the aesthetics of Kirk's statue. I am still dithering about the article's ending – which poet to sign off with, primarily. We could replace Clarke with Richard Murphy, but I've not read Murphy's poem beyond the quotes in the interview, and I'm a bit worried that the "chiselled voice" might be seen as provocative, an Anglo-Irish sneer. Got to be rather careful, with the centenary in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. All looks good. Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the peer review, prior to FAC nomination later this evening. I've had advice that the broken pillar iamage is probably OK, based on this; anyway, it's worth going to FAC with it and seeing how it fares there. I can't see anything else that needs attention. If you want to tweak anything, you've got a few hours to do it before I finalise the nomination.

After a FAC nom I always wait for about 48 hours before engaging with any review comments. I find the break essential if I am to consider comments objectively. You can of course proceed as you wish, but if you're unsure, keep in touch so that we are not responding at cross purposes. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(true also for Brian who got many of these already and will watch, I guess) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ago ...

thoughts
... you were recipient no. 122 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

I just remembered the centenary of the death of Max Reger, - more pictures on my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Reger pictures are now stored under my images, preceding a very moving memorial concert which I learned about on my talk, of all places! It became a tombstone in music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five years now, and still so valid what I heard you say then: "how letting personal animosity and dislikes get in the way of the bigger picture ... destroys trust". I nominated a Magnificat for FAC, in case of interest. The lead image is from the town where I live, and was just back to be seen after restoration of the church. The church is called Union Church (if you translate it) because a union was possible there of the Lutheran and Reformed Protestants, in 1817, a model for others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neer mind, I try to forget the Magnificat --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and seven, with thanks! I turned to a sad task: improving articles of some - too many - who recently died. On the Main page now: Georg Katzer and Wolfgang Meyer who recorded with Harnoncourt, more here. My tombstones ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and eight, and see regarding the above, WP:QAI/Recent deaths. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

You may not have seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irregular chess opening Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for referencing every entry - agree that refimprove's removal is justified. But sources were primary so i tagged it so. Felt it fair to let you know as you'd gone to so much effort on it!Rayman60 (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Award articles tend to be just lists, really. And the sources will mostly be primary. All the references are doing is confirming that the awards were presented to the people they were presented to, and the most authoritative source there is invariably the awarding institution. Not sure what to do here, as I don't think the tag is justified there. I would suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes, but that is not very active. I will dig around and see if I can find anything more. Failing that, what do you think is best to do here? Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that sometimes primary sources can be the only way to get an all-encompassing list, however I would also have liked to have seen the list bolstered with independent sources. The lack of such suggests lack of notability so I would hope there are some out there. I added the tag based on a rather objective interpretation of the primary source concept without considering whether such specialised lists may wholly or largely rely upon them. Happy to go with whatever you think is most appropriate. Please do inform me of your thoughts and/or decisions so I know for future too. Rayman60 (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some more with the article and removed the tag. I'd like to thank you for making me look at this some more, as there was some early history for this award that is interesting that I had missed. Was a bit stunned to find that one of the early awards was a sculpture that sold at auction recently for £50,000. The descendants of the person awarded that prize must be thanking their lucky stars he got that award and not one of the other ones instead! Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts! It's looking much better now, with more info and a number of decent sources. I wonder if the sentimental value to the descendants of those early prizes exceeds its current monetary value?? Rayman60 (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I was going to mention (but forgot in my note above), that I did go and discuss this on another user's talk page. The discussion (so far) is here. I hope the tone of that discussion doesn't come across as too world-weary! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you're into awards lists, you might see if anything is wrong with this one I made aeons ago. Thanks and later...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. That looks a really nice list, on an obscure topic that deserves the attention you gave it. 2010 isn't aeons ago! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After posting this, I looked at it and noticed that I had completely forgotten that I had put it up for FL years ago. I didn't agree with a damn word the FL reviewers said; it sounded like baloney. When I compared other FL's to that list, the other FL's were skimpy-wimpy horseshit. But whatever. :-) Anyhow, I am not yet fully in the swing of things after a long vacation & major summer housecleaning/gardening etc., and may not be for a few more days, but later on if you ever need anything please do give me a holler. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello! Your submission of Philip Hepworth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carcharoth, I've just got to the Welch Regiment War Memorial on my list (the links are gradually turning blue!) and was thinking about our earlier conversation about the eight(?) Lutyens cenotaphs. We thought that Norwich's wasn't one of the eight, but several of the NHLE entries list it as one—the entry for Rochdale Cenotaph, for example, says "This [Rochdale] is one of eight cenotaphs in England designed by Lutyens. The earliest to be erected was at Southampton in 1920; the latest at Norwich, in 1927". So we have:

1. Southampton
2. Reading
3. Maidstone
4. Derby
5. Rochdale
6. Whitehall
7. Richmond

Plus Norwich and Cardiff. I think probably the best way to handle it is to follow HE on describing Norwich as one of the eight in England, and treat the Welch Regiment's as a ninth. What do you think? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to try and locate all the entries where English Heritage state this fact (and also the one about the number of regimental memorials), and check they are being consistent. The entry I pointed you to earlier for the Whitehall Cenotaph only refers to 'Other variants on the design', omitting Norwich. It is possible the sources slightly contradict themselves, or are unclear. Maybe also see what other sources say as well.

One point about the Welch Regiment War Memorial which I raised in the earlier conversation is about who unveiled it. I found a source which said it was "unveiled on 11 November 1924 by Major-General Sir Thomas Marden". That source is a history of the Welch Regiment here (from 1952). The original unveiler had been intended to be R. H. K. Butler. There is an asterisk next to the name of Marden on page 13 of that history of the Welch Regiment, so maybe try and get hold of a copy of that source? On the other hand, that history of the Welch Regiment does have a mention of Plumer on page 12, saying he unveiled a memorial to the Regiment in Llandaff Cathedral on 19 July 1924, dedicated by the Lord Bishop of Llandaff (probably Pritchard Hughes) - the Welch Regimental memorial had been dedicated by Ernest Thorold. That history of the regiment is quite clear in distinguishing between the two memorials and ceremonies: on page 12: "There are three regimental memorials to The Fallen of the First World War. Two were unveiled in the year 1924. Firstly, the Regimental Memorial erected to the Memory of All Ranks of All Battalions of The Regiment in Llandaff Cathedral." (The unveiling of this by Lord Plumer is mentioned here). Then on page 13, the Lutyens cenotaph and its unveiling by Marden on 11 November 1924. You source the unveiling by Plumer to Skelton p.167, presumably Lutyens and the Great War? I had a look at my copy of that, and that is what Skelton and Gliddon say. I think they have erred here. Maybe someone should write to them at the Lutyens Trust about that? I checked the reports at the time from The Times and there is a report from 1924 about the Llandaff memorial unveiling (The Welch Regiment. War Memorial Unveiled. The Times (London, England), Monday, Jul 21, 1924; pg. 9; Issue 43709). Apparently Marden was at that unveiling as well. I can't find any report in The Times for the unveiling of the Lutyens cenotaph in Cardiff on 11 November 1924. I can only think Skelton and Gliddon (or their researchers) confused the two memorials. Maybe local newspapers in Cardiff might have a contemporary report on each unveiling? Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:, and I'll raise this on the article talk page as well and maybe edit the article to include this source. 10:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Have now edited the article to reflect the above. Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Carcharoth, sorry for the late reply—I went to see my grandmother in Coventry for a few days. While I was there I managed to nip down to Rugby and Northampton and across to Leicester to see the Lutyens memorials there and take photos (which I'll upload to Commons in due course). Thanks for your edits to the Welch Regiment memorial. I had a look for a copy of that book, but it seems to be very rare and the only copies on the Internet are going for £100. Anyway, you're probably right about Skelton confusing the various memorials. I'm a member of the Lutyens Trust, so I might drop them an email.

As for the various cenotaphs, I'm now even more confused. The entry for the one in Maidstone says "This is one of eight cenotaphs in England designed by Lutyens [...] The earliest of Lutyens's cenotaphs to be erected was at Southampton, in 1920; the latest was that at Norwich, in 1927". Several other listings use the same phrase but not all do (including Southampton and Whitehall), and that implies there are eight in total, not eight plus Whitehall. But I count nine in England (ten in the UK), with Whitehall: Derby, Manchester, Maidstone, Reading, Rochdale, Southampton, Whitehall, Richmond, Norwich, and Cardiff (note that all ten listings refer make much of the objects being cenotaphs and being designed by Lutyens.). I might email Historic England about that—they've been responsive in the past when I've emailed them with minor errors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it feels like I'm finally making some headway on my little project to document all of Lutyens' war memorials: I count 43 free-standing memorials in the UK (+1 in Ireland), of which all but nine now have articles. The last nine are all war crosses which are all ... exactly the same but completely different! I think I'll send that email to Historic England tomorrow. It's a bank holiday so it'll probably take them a few days to respond but it might be the first thing in their inbox on Tuesday morning. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: thanks for the update, and congrats on being nearly there with the Lutyens memorials! Sorry I didn't reply to your earlier message. I have got a bit carried away with a listing of all the MPs, peers and their sons that died in WWI and WWII. See here. It has been interesting seeing the various states of all those articles. The main listings (only considering those with Wikipedia articles here) of 46 entries for WWI and 56 entries for WWII should have been enough, but I then decided to see what could be done with the listings of the sons (and for WWII, brothers and daughters) on the memorials in both Houses for both World Wars. Turns out that the number is around 400... It is remarkable how many scions of the aristocracy fell in the wars (this is not anything new, people have written quite a bit about this) and the many stories associated with that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Down to eight now, but alas back to work tonight after a week off and a long weekend. I'll do what I can in the week though. I'd love to see blue links for all 43. Next challenge will be visiting the ones I haven't been to yet, but that could get expensive! I'll have to start thinking about a structure for a general article to link the 43 articles together. It's amazing, and tragic, to see the impact the wars had on society, and you're right that it's equally fascinating that not even the aristocracy came out of it unscathed. Part of my inspiration for this project was the realisation that the wars touched everyone—there's a war memorial in just about every town and village in Britain and in some small villages you can count more names on the war memorial than houses in the village. Speaking of the aristocracy (not, I hasten to clarify, that I'm landed gentry!), the fate of public schoolboys in the world wars is one that interests me. My old school has its own war memorial and my old history teacher has just written a book about the school's ex-pupils and staff in WWI. Gerald Gliddon (Tim Skelton's co-author on Lutyens and the Great War) wrote a book about public schools in WWI but I haven't been able to find a copy at a sensible price and it's not top of m list for the minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: school memorials are another angle, yes. On my perambulations yesterday, I came across the webpages set up by Winchester College, see an example here (from WWII). Same story with the public schools - the people who were meant to become the next generation of leaders of the civil service, of industry and so on, were given commissions as junior officers and many were killed. Though the numbers of ordinary soldiers killed far outweighed other classes of soldiers in terms of numbers, the mortality rate was, I recall from reading about this some time ago, greatest among the junior officers who were expected to lead the charge over the top. With the aristocracy, it depended on the family. Many had a strong tradition of military service, and were more than willing to serve (and die). It was expected of them, and many were already in the military or in some cases raised and led new battalions from people on their estates. The actual lord/duke/earl might be too old to fight, but would be in uniform and would send his sons to fight. The most powerful and influential families might be able to arrange things a certain way (a safe posting at GCHQ or somewhere else behind the lines), but minor nobles and impoverished aristocrats (there were many of these) would not be able to do this. If the eldest son was killed, and the sons after him, and there were not enough 'spares' (as the younger sons of nobles were often called), then the title would (when the bereaved father later died) go to a sometimes distant relative or go extinct altogether. There was also a tradition in some families that the younger sons would enter the military. You get quite a lot of 4th/5th/6th sons, born to an older father who died before the war, in which case the eldest son became the new lord, and these younger sons (in their 30s and 40s by the time the war starts) are called up and also decimated to some extent. But it does vary a lot and from family to family. Some very sad individual cases, though this is not surprising when dealing with the sheer numbers involved. Nearly every permutation that was possible actually happened. And with that, I need to go to work as well! Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment is available on protecting user pages by default from edits by anonymous and new users. I am notifying you because you commented on this proposal when it was either in idea or draft form. Funcrunch (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'cricket' thread has not been handled well by an editor or the clerks (and thanks very much for pointing out that he is a clerk - I missed that entirely), but I have added the evidence to my statement, without the PAs the IP thought fit to include. It's an illuminating example and should be examined without the questionable to-and-fro of deletion. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Dragged over from Iridescent's talk page. I think cadency may explain most of the variations you're seeing. After the death of his elder brother John in 1902, William Walrond was the eldest living son and heir apparent, so he differenced his father's arms with a label. If you look carefully at the shield for Neil Primrose, you'll see a crescent at the central point, superimposed over the design, showing that he was Rosebery's second son. Francis McLaren was Aberconway's son, and also has a crescent for difference, in this case at the top of the shield. Choess (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Choess. I knew I'd have to say whether they were first, second or third sons at some point, and that is the perfect excuse and explains everything. Well, except the colour variants. Would you be able to help with the following (or suggest where to ask)?

• I presume there are no actual differences between 1 and 2?
• Why is 3 only part of the O'Neill shield?
• Why are the flags white for the McLaren shield compared to 4?
• Colours differ slightly for 5 (blue tongues and claws) and Primrose heraldic shield (red tongues and claws and red in the flowery bits.
• Black lions in the Thynne heraldic shield and red lions in 6.

Regarding the cadency, Clive was the eldest son but his father had predeceased him, so no cadence there as I presume the arms passed to him from his father. Walrond was the eldest surviving son, as you say, so the label of three points used (picking a suitable colour, I presume - apparently brisures are exempt from the rule of tincture). Baring was the fourth son, though his father predeceased him and his elder brother was the 5th Baron - the heraldic shield has both a crescent added (probably inherited from a second son inheriting the title at some point) and a martlet (as the fourth son). For Campbell, presumably he was the eldest or only son and his father predeceased him. Crichton-Stuart was a second son, and gets the crescent. Gladstone was an only son, but is given a martlet which I think is not a cadence given to him (WGCG) but a cadence that was inherited from the grandfather (the famous prime minster) who was a fourth son of the 1st Baronet Gladstone. Thynne was a third son, but the second son had died so he took the cadence of a second son. I'm going to stop there (you covered Primrose and McLaren). I see why they often don't bother with cadences... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Baring arms: yes, those are just two different artistic interpretations of the same blazon.
• Arthur O'Neill: The other quartering, chequy or and gules a chief vair, is the coat of Chichester. O'Neill's grandfather, William O'Neill, 1st Baron O'Neill, was paternally a Chichester but changed his name on inheriting the O'Neill estates. William's great-grandmother Mary was heraldic heiress to her father Henry O'Neill of Shane's Castle (d. 1723) and had already brought the O'Neill quartering into the Chichester family arms.
• Francis McLaren: Debrett's 1985 says "castle triple towered and with flags flying sable". Burke's 1911 says "a triple towered castle sable, masoned argent, flags, windows, and porticullis of the second." So also Burke's 1902. Lodge's Peerage(?) 1907: "a castle triple-turreted sable". If the last represents the original arms, the artist would have some liberty in how to depict the castle, and the other blazons may simply be describing one particular artists' choice.
• Neil Primrose: The blazon in Balfour Paul, "An Ordinary of Arms", says that 2nd & 3rd quarters matriculated by Rosebery in 1823 were Argent a lion rampant double-queued sable, while the 1st & 4th quarters were vert, three primroses within a double tressure flory counter-flory or. Since no color is specified for the lion's tongue, claws, etc., the differences are purely from the artist's interpretation.
• Lord Alexander Thynne: Debrett's of 1878 gives the coat for the 4th Marquess as bearing the lion rampant, tail nowed and erected, gules. So also Fox-Davies Armorial Families 1895. Debrett's 1931 gives the same for 5th Marquess. The black color in the shield must be an artist's error.
• Guy Baring: The crescent is probably there because Lord Northbrook is the senior representative of the descendents of Sir Francis Baring, 1st Baronet, while Lord Ashburton is descended from his second son. However, looking at contemporary peerages and armories, the two families don't seem to have differenced their coats of arms, although the peers themselves had different crests and supporters. So the crescent under the martlet may be a hypercorrection by the heraldic artist. Cracroft's Peerage claims that Ashburton now uses a cross formé fitchée azure as a mark of difference but I can't find any other corroboration at the moment.
• Duncan Frederick Campbell: his father was Archibald Frederick, a barrister in Toronto, and his grandfather was Duncan Campbell. I suspect he was not actually armigerous and that the artist slapped up the undifferenced arms of Campbell on the memorial.
• William Glynne Charles Gladstone: like the Ashburtons, the contemporary Gladstones don't seem to have bothered with marks of cadency, so the added martlet may actually be another hypercorrection by the artist.

Hope this helps, Choess (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is very helpful, thanks. I wonder if I should ask what 'armigerous' means? :-) (OK, the link answered that.) Several of those commemorated by heraldic shields were not sons of peers, but some did have that in their ancestry somewhere (e.g. Gladstone). I don't think Bennett-Goldney (Francis Bennett-Goldney) had any aristocratic ancestry, but he was mayor of Canterbury. The Cawley brothers is an interesting case ([1]; [2]). Harold Cawley and Oswald Cawley. I can't remember what order they were born in and what order they died in, but Harold died before his father was ennobled (hence was never styled 'The Honorable'), but was commemorated with a heraldic shield, maybe the arms were those of his father's baronetcy, rather than the Barony? No idea what they based the arms for Valentine Fleming on: [3]. Ditto Philip Glazebrook ([4]). Unlike the others I failed to find arms for, Charles Thomas Mills was the son of a peer ([5]), but for some reason the arms of the Hillingdon Barons don't seem to be on Commons (I suppose no-one has got round to it yet). The final one (Willie Redmond) is interesting as well ([6]), as "He came from a Catholic gentry family of Norman descent long associated with County Wexford" - I am sure the College of Arms had fun with that. If you really want to go to town on this, the three MPs without heraldic shields were Charles Henry Lyell (a son of a baron), Tom Kettle (no relevant ancestry I can find), and John Joseph Esmonde (the family was part of the Baronetage of Ireland). Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been meaning to answer this for a while. Peers (the nobility) are a subset of the gentry, which more or less corresponds to people entitled to bear arms (well, Round would disagree with Fox-Davies on that, but never mind). You can be an armiger without any family connection to a peer, or anyone with a hereditary title for that matter. Being a peer just means you get some extra knickknacks dispersed around the shield (supporters and a coronet).

If you look here, there's the blazon of the Fleming arms (without the label for cadency); Robin (not Robert) is Valentine's nephew and was High Sheriff of Oxfordshire in 1980. My guess is that the arms were granted to Robert (d. 1933) at some point on the way up the ladder. Lyell should have been an armiger: the Lyell of Kinnordy coat is described here, "or, a cross azure between four crosses patteé gules within a bordure engrailed of the last", and Charles, the geologist and baronet, bore a differenced version of the same. The Esmonde arms are "ermine, on a chief gules, three mullets or", so John Joseph should have been able to bear those, doubly differenced for cadency. I suspect Kettle was not armigerous but can't be sure. I have no idea why the other two would not have gotten shields, especially in light of Campbell, who was probably not an armiger. Incidentally, there's a somewhat confused explanation of the Redmond arms at Loftus Hall; they seem to arise from a garbled recollection of a Royalist attack on the (then) Redmond Hall, transformed by tradition into a Cromwellian siege. (The attack was conducted by a deputy of Esmonde's ancestor.) Choess (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this. All fascinating. As I've said elsewhere on similar topics, may come back to this after thinking about it for a bit. Carcharoth (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this you? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most people I know don't accent everything so much, but that is one way to pronounce my username, yes. The important thing is that the 'c' is hard: Kar-khar-roth. Probably meant to be an emphasis on one or other of the syllables, but I forget which. The article: Carcharoth might tell you more (it gives an IPA pronunciation). Way back when, I should have chosen a more sensible name, something like Anfauglir... Carcharoth (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I too think that the Quote template should have a date param. I've added one to the sandbox version. Please have a look at it. If it's OK, we can put it in the main template code. -- Ebelular (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. I am not very good with that sort of technical stuff. Can you try asking someone else? Sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. You can still provide valuable feedback about the look of the 'date'. Does this example look OK to you? -- Ebelular (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Carcharoth,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether First Lebanon War should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Lebanon War .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Abbottonian (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Cas Liber (submissions)
• Second Place - MPJ-DK (submissions)
• Third Place - Adam Cuerden (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
• Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
• Featured List – Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
• Featured Portal – SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
• Featured Topic – Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
• Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
• Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
• In The News – Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
• Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carcharoth.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi there! I see you have been trying to reduce duplication on the editathon page. I don't think this is necessary at this stage as I was trying to compile a list of new articles during the editathon. When I've completed it, there might be a case for handling duplicates but I think it is important at this stage to compile a full list.--Ipigott (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to compile a full list as well. What is the difference between 'New or upgraded articles' and 'During the BBC editathon'? I am moving the articles (created on 8 December during the editathon) that I added to the former section, to the new section that you created. I am not removing any entries, just ensuring there is no duplication. Carcharoth (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your involvement and it is indeed great to have more than one person helping out. Would it be possible for you to give me about an hour to add all the new women's biographies created on 8 December to the new list? I am going through the [AlexBot] lists and am about half way through. I had been adding them in the reverse order of creation (i.e. most recent at the top). Once the full list has been completed, we can mark duplicates if you think that is important. In fact it's not as important as you might think as duplicates are eliminated automatically in the WiR metrics.--Ipigott (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't realised you were only part way through. I thought you had left quite a few out. As you are planning to finish the list, I am very happy to leave you to do that (alphabetical order for articles created on that single day might be better ultimately). I don't understand what you mean about WiR metrics. Do you mean the stats generated from the WikiProject tags? That is different to manually created lists like this. Manually created lists shouldn't have duplicates either as that can confuse people. Some articles were also moved from drafts, and some articles were created before and after 8 December. Also, not all will have been tagged with Womeninred. Are you aware of the hashtag used in edit summaries and the search that find around 138 articles? See here (and remove the en filter if you want to see the articles created in other languages). Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Margaret Read (musician), doesn't appear on the AlexBot list. I also found one that was speedily deleted, see Wanjiru Kihusa. Carcharoth (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer, I will move everything to draft until the list has been completed. It will take me too long to explain everything here but I can assure you everything is very logical. Let me just say that the upper list has been created by people who have expressly contributed to the WiR editathon while the 8 December list is intended to identify all the articles created during the BBC editathon whether or not they were aware of WiR. Most weren't. The WiR metrics are here. All the name should also be included alphabetically for December.--Ipigott (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should keep using that space. It would be better for me to build my list elsewhere. I would like to include rejected drafts, articles that are still in draft form (one I am still trying to find), speedily deleted articles, and also the nominations made here that may not have been acted on yet but some were and were not explicitly linked from the BBC Live Reporting page (e.g. Mary Tape, Andrea Stark). Carcharoth (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional articles possibly not mentioned elsewhere: Siyanda Mohutsiwa, a declined AfC draft: Draft:Monica Dinosaurescu, nomination not created Sirin Hamsho (nominated here), Kathryn McDowell (nomination), Sheema Kirmani (draft). Lucy Ann-Holmes was nominated by Helen Pankhurst in relation to No More Page 3, but no edits made on 8 December to the 'No More Page 3' article, and instead an article was created on Helen Pankhurst herself (from here). Imani Lansiquot or Imani-Lara Lansiquot was nominated but not created. Instagram has a nomination from BBC journalist Emily Maitlis here - no name mentioned, but presumably refers to Rose Cannan, wife of Denis Cannan and whose story is told here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these additional names. There may be quite a few more. AlexBot is not comprehensive. I apologize for being brief but I wanted to get the list finished to avoid more edit conflicts, etc. I started off rather slowly yesterday as I was editing each of the articles as I went along and adding the names to Wikidata.

You'll be pleased to hear that I've now completed the list on the basis of AlexBot. I think it is an excellent idea of yours to highlight articles requiring attention. In fact nearly all of them need work on categories, de-orphaning, defaultsort, authority control, and of course general copy editing. Generally speaking we have been very lucky more have not been deleted but I expect the page reviewers are catching up. As we are working on a WikiProject page, I don't think duplication is an issue. The lists here are simply to demonstrate the number of articles created through the editathon and provide a basis for further work. Please now feel free to continue work on the list, adding any missing names and, if you wish, specifying what urgent work is required. I very much appreciate your assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for coming here to co-ordinate. Another category is articles created in other languages that were already on en-Wikipedia: Shandra Woworuntu. The strange thing there is that it was created in Indonesian, but the cross-wiki links were not updated. I'll do that now. Carcharoth (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were quite a few in other languages, no doubt as a result of the BBC's 90 second video on how to edit Wikipedia. There was one poor soul who wrote six articles and a user page in Zulu before everything was deleted. It occurred to me that if you have constructive suggestions for the improvement of our work, you might like to communicate on the Women in Red talk page. I think you'll find some of the recent segments interesting.--Ipigott (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was shocked that (allegedly) someone (a male editor, as if that needed highlighting or made a difference) was blocked for 6 months for objecting to the notability of the articles being created on the Turkish Wikipedia. The reporting may have left out other details as to why the editor was really blocked, but then that would be really poor journalism. Carcharoth (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your great efforts to help with checking the women articles done during the editathon. Doing a terrific job! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the middle of a monster DIY project (essentially I had an extension built and I am doing all the fit-out myself, including moving most of the rest of the walls in the house), so I've not really had time to look into the BBC thing. Is there anything specifically you'd flag as interesting? Anything we could do better? Guy (Help!) 20:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

• First place – $200
• Second & Third place – $50 each
• Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Carcharoth, for you interesting comments on the AfD for List of female Egyptologists and for your follow-up work on Wikidata. I see that once you got the hang of it you were able to proceed very quickly. Are you aware that thousands of articles about women are being created automatically every week on the Welsh wiki? See details here. It looks to me as if it is time to have a serious review of Wikimedia policy, Wikidata development, and potential problems in this connection. As you must know, while Wikidata contains a great deal of useful information, most of it is unreferenced and relies mainly on the articles in the various Wikimedia languages. If it is to be used as a source for creating articles, even lists, far more attention will need to be given to quality control. For quite some time, I have been suggesting that Wikidata could be used as a source for creating new biographies on the English Wikipedia but I still think that until quality is improved, it should only be used as a source for further development by human editors. Perhaps you could advise on where this discussion could best be continued.--Ipigott (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the follow up here. I have misgivings about the Welsh increase. That is an artefact arising from the fact that the Welsh Wikipedia have so few articles. It is easy to make a difference there, less easy on en-Wikipedia. And if the Welsh Wikipedia translated all the en-Wikipedia articles they are missing into Welsh, the balance in the numbers would (unsurprisingly) be the same as we have here. About Wikidata, I agree that a discussion is needed, but it is really hard to work out where. And also to find people who are single-minded enough and have enough time to work on gathering community consensus over things like this. There are other things I need to do, and I promised myself I wouldn't get distracted! Maybe start with people like Nikkimaria, Risker, Johnpacklambert, Ealdgyth, and discuss at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2? There has been some recent activity on that page. There are some strong opinions around. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC) PS. I forgot to mention Fram, see here. For the record, I do support a lot of what Wikidata does. What I don't support is the push to try and make Wikipedia overly dependant on Wikidata. There needs to be proper reversibility and accountability baked into the system. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

PS. To Ipigott and anyone else reading. I am moderately familiar with Wikidata already. Have a look at my contributions over there. There is endless amounts that could be done over there. But it is not clear what is best done by people and what is best left to bots. Sometimes it feels like the same information is being entered twice, once on en-Wikipedia and once on Wikidata. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks first of all for all the additional work you have been doing on Wikidata to expand and improve the list. Over the past few months, I have been doing an increasing amount of work on Wikidata too although I found it was very difficult to start with. It became much easier after I installed the gadget described here which allows you to add information to Wikidata without leaving the Wikipedia article you are working on. Compared to Wikipedia, Wikidata is a relatively new development and still requires considerable work but it seems to be coming on very well and can increasingly be used as a useful source of information in connection with the creation of new articles. But as you say, it contains many errors, some created by poor programming of the bots, others simply copied from incorrect details on Wikipedia. I finally decided to vote "Keep" on the list as I think deletion at this stage could have unexpected repercussions. Perhaps there is a more sensible way of dealing with the use of Wikidata lists on the mainspace, for example by including a meaningful introduction or lead and inviting comments on omissions or required correction on the talk page. I also note that Victuallers is interested in discussing the issue further once we have decided on the most appropriate place to do so.--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that we need not discuss how wikidata is used on en:wiki but how en:wiki is used by wikidata! I suspect a new interface will develop - maybe like the reasonator. Victuallers (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts. I am going to move on from this now. I will check back, but need to work on some other areas now. Carcharoth (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been working on this further and calling for a Listeria update. As Nikkimaria and others are attempting to work on manual improvements to this and similar lists, I have suggested on Joe Roe's talk page that the Wikidata lists on women should be moved to Women in Red where they could continue to be updated from Wikidata but that the lists on the mainspace should be manually edited until consensus is achieved. Until now, Listeria has only provided updates about once every three weeks.--Ipigott (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I continue to get distracted. :-) I am going to do something else for a bit, but will try and keep up with developments over the next few days. Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I