User talk:Gog the Mild

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Utica (204 BC) 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Gog, this is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'd personally drop the disambiguator, since there's not an article to conflict with at the title and some brief searching suggests that this is a clear primary topic. As for FAC - it wouldn't be the most slam-dunk case out there, but I think it'd be doable. If you can trawl everything out of the sources, I think the key will be having a good response for distinguishing this topic from the longer Battle of Utica (203 BC) article (frame this one as the large campaign?). Hog Farm _Talk 01:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. I'll leave it for a week or two, read through it again, and decide. My current thinking is not to, and to write a separate article on the campaign as a whole, to tie everything together. There is a surprising amount of information which hasn't ended up in any of the articles. Logistics, training, politics, some diplomacy. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Dis-disambiguation done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The article Siege of Utica (204 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Utica (204 BC) for comments about the article, and Talk:Siege of Utica (204 BC)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It is possible (but not certain) depending on how some source inquiries go, that I may send USS Romeo to FAC at some point later this year. One of the sources that would be used is the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies , a collection of various military reports, technical data, and other documents, from the time that the US Navy operated the ship. Now obviously, the hope is to rely on this primary source data as little as possible, but I don't think complete avoidance is possible without obnoxious gaps in the ship's career narrative. As an FAC coordinator - would you prefer the citation style of this work as found in USS Marmora (1862), or the one seen in the GA USS John P. Jackson or USS Varuna (1861)? The latter is more thorough, but also has the potential to become quite ugly at times, as can be seen at the John P. Jackson article. Hog Farm _Talk 01:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hmm. I am not sure that I can see a lot of difference. The latter actually looks less ugly to me. That may be my dislike of source details in the references (citations) section. As you will know from reviewing my articles I prefer to put all of that in "Sources". (The clue is in the name. :-) ) That said, as a coord I am not sure I care how it is presented, I care about the extent it stays well inside the MoS re primary sourcing. It is horribly easy to end up ORing in these situations; although if anyone can avoid that it is you. Dunno if that helps. Feel free to ask a supplementary. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The plan is to get it down to just using that to nail down a few names/dates + a few quotables of the sort that you can only find in the 19th century. Hog Farm _Talk 04:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The first round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As a reminder, we are no longer disqualifying the lowest-scoring contestants; everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned from Wikipedia. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. Unlike the round points in the main WikiCup table, which are reset at the end of each round, tournament points are carried over between rounds and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far.

Round 1 was very competitive compared with previous years; two contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 500 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• English Island, South Australia Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,168 round points, mainly from 4 featured articles and 4 good articles on old military history, in addition to an assortment of GA and FA reviews.
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, mainly from 2 FAs, 2 featured lists, 8 GAs, and 16 Did You Know articles mainly on historical topics.
• Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions), with 866 round points from 20 GAs, 23 DYKs, and 2 In the News articles primarily about athletes.
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with 846 round points from 16 GAs about radio and TV stations, 45 GA reviews, and 3 DYKs.
• Canada Hey man im josh (submissions), with 816 round points from 5 FLs about sports and Olympic topics, 46 FL reviews, 3 ITN articles, and a large number of bonus points.
• Italy MaranoFan (submissions), with 815 round points primarily from 3 FAs and 1 GA about music, in addition to 9 article reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 18 featured articles, 26 featured lists, 1 featured-topic article, 197 good articles, 38 good-topic articles and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 23 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 550 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2, which begins on 1 March. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]