User talk:Cplakidas/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Cplakidas, for the period 9/2017 – 4/2018. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

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 two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello Constantine. Hope you are okay. I dont normally write articles about the hellenistic period as I prefer much older history (mainly middle bronze age and earlier). But somehow, I found myself re-writing the article of Cleopatra Selene I. I just wanted to clarify her children (especially a controversial figure called Seleucus VII who might have not been real). Then It became a work that took more that a month and multiple visits to different libraries just to find the very scant sources on her. Now that its done, I feel like its something nice and I was wondering if you could review it and tell me if its an FA material or not. That is ofcourse if you have time and will. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Attar-Aram syria! From a first glance, it looks really well done (as usual), but I will take some time over the next few days to look at it more thoroughly. I cannot comment on comprehensiveness, though, as I too am not too familiar with the period. Constantine ✍ 08:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Attar-Aram syria! I've read it through, and made some minor tweaks here and there. Despite the complicated subject, it is well readable, and appears very comprehensive (with the caveat that I am not familiar with the period or the bibliography). From where I stand, it is good to go! Constantine ✍ 08:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks alot! appreciate you making the effort. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Constantine – I wouldn't be surprised if Archon were on your watchlist, but in case it is not, I thought I'd point it out to you. It is full of "citation needed" tags, at least one external link in mid-article, and quite a few red links. Perhaps you could give the article some attention when you have time. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne! Yeah, I keep a watch on it, being the one who added the Byzantine section. Unfortunately, I am not that conversant with the ancient Greek perspective, which is clearly far more extensive than presented here. I'll keep it in mind though, in case I find any good sources. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Great! Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Constantine! I saw that De Gruyter opened the access to the prosopography's content, and it's wonderful. However, I have a doubt. Do you know if they intend do let it open? If so, do you know if all the printed content is online for free? I really would like it. Anyway, I scanned the first two books from the prosopography and I intend to put them online as fast as possible, but there are still lots of books to scan and it will take more time.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Renato! Yes, that is indeed a welcome development! I assume it will stay open, as the trend in European academia is to provide open access to any research made with public money (and the PmbZ has been mostly written here in Vienna). AFAIK, the online content is identical (or updated/corrected) to the printed content, so you don't need to bother with it. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 06:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I must confess that this trend is not fashionable for most of Brazilian institutions, public or not. We don't have free access to all content produced by scholars here, and even when we have it's limited by bureaucracies. Anyway, it's marvelous to know that, it's easier to me, for instance, to have the online version because my German is really poor and I can't try to translate using the computer. But despite that, I think it's nice to have the printed ones and when I conclude I'm going to upload on Library Genesis. Cheers!--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. 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 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		For your work in promoting Bessas (general), Vitalian (general), and Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430) to A-class, I am pleased to present you with the A-class Medal with Swords. For the Coordinators of the Military history Project. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Constantine, a review of Milhist records has shown that you never received A-class Medal credit for the articles on Bessas and Vitalian when they were promoted in 2013. As such, please accept this belated A-Class Medal with Swords and my apologies. Thank you for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks AustralianRupert! Constantine ✍ 16:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Alexandros Papagos.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Paul Palaiologos Tagaris article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 29, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 29, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for "a 14th-century Byzantine minor noble who by various deceits managed to advance from a simple monk to the Roman Catholic Patriarchate of Constantinople, switching back and forth between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and the Roman and Avignon popes, and generally making a splendid career out of it." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to you for having displayed particularly fine decisions in general editing (and talk page discussions if may I add). Thank you and keep up the good work! -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 08:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you SilentResident, much appreciated :). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Constantine – If you have time, would you take a look at this edit to Gnosticism? I don't know if the edit is an improvement or not, but I thought you would know.  – Corinne (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, thanks, that was clear vandalism. The editor didn't even make a clean removal, but broke the citation template syntax as well. Constantine ✍ 16:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I thought something didn't look right. Thanks for dealing with this.  – Corinne (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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 Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello Constantine! I tried to "correct" something I thought was a mistake on Byzantine Empire and anyone else corrected me and after I checked in fact his/her correction was right. The only problem is, the problem isn't solve. Let me explain. According to Siege of Ragusa (866–868) that you created using Kreutz, the Byzantines conquered Bari back at 876, but according to Browning, that was used on Byzantine Empire's article, the conquest occurred at 873. Do you have any idea about it? Trying to "solve" the question, I updated the portuguese version of Byzantine Empire's article saying just that the conquest occurred at 873/876, but I don't know if this is enough. Cheers! --Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Renato! AFAIK, Louis II held Bari until he died, which was in 875. After that his troops left and its inhabitants simply surrendered the city to the Byzantines. Clearly Browning has confused matters here. Constantine ✍ 08:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

So, maybe it's necessary clarify the question on the article, right?--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Gallipoli (1416) 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 Alex Shih -- Alex Shih (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alex Shih! Thanks a lot for taking the time for it, looking forward to the full review. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cplakidas, I am sorry about the delay. I am almost finished with the full review, whenever you have time, feel free to take a look at what I have written so far. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I recently rewrote Anthimos Gazis. Any idea on how close it is to Good Article status?--Catlemur (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Catlemur! Difficult to say. It is certainly a good summary, but if I were to review it, a few things would strike me as problematic:

• the over-reliance on a single source (the PhD thesis)
• the referencing pattern, i.e. the tendency to have entire sections covered by a single footnote, which then spans several pages (e.g. Kordatos 1977, pp. 73–85). here I strongly recommend splitting up both the text and the reference into smaller sections
• a lack of balance in detail: you cover some aspects of his life spanning years epigrammatically, and then you have an entire section dealing with a few days in May 1821 in considerable detail. This contravenes WP:SS. Why not dedicate an entire section for his writings and discuss them in detail as well? How about a discussion on his place in the Greek Enlightenment? What was his job in the commissions on military affairs and education? Etc.
• Stavroulaki's work has 300 pages, but you only go as far as 67. Why? This suggests that major aspects are left untreated (or not treated in as much detail as possible)

Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree, I will try to find some additional sources first.--Catlemur (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You do realize that the Republic of Venice had no "nobility" as such? Just patricians. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"Just patricians"? The Venetian patriciate was a hereditary social class that monopolized power. By any definition, that is a nobility. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

No, that isn't the definition of nobility AT ALL! Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, our own article says "Nobility is a social class, normally ranked immediately under royalty, that possesses more acknowledged privileges and higher social status than most other classes in a society, membership thereof typically being hereditary." That fits the Venetian patriciate almost like a glove. The fact that the status was not confirmed by a royal authority or that they were not feudal lords as in Western Europe is irrelevant. There are plenty of nobilities around the world that do not conform to the standard schema of medieval Western European aristocracy. Constantine ✍ 07:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Plus, have a look at the perhaps main handbook on Venetian history available in English, Lane's Venice, a Maritime Republic: "One class at Venice, the nobility" (p. 20), "The criterion of nobility then established, namely, membership in the Great Council, was maintained; and only nobles could serve..." (p. 201), etc. The term is used by quite a few other writers as well. Mutatis mutandis, the Venetian patriciate was a noble class, period. Constantine ✍ 07:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The trouble with that idea is that very many European cities had patriciates that matched that of Venice pretty exactly (normally on a smaller scale of course), but are (depending on the period) very sharply distinguished from the neighbouring nobility. Note the case of Genoa in particular. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Did the civic patriciate coexist with any other "noble" class in the confines of the same polity? No. The patriciate is an urban nobility; of course it is to be distinguished from landholding, feudal nobility, but it filled the same social niche, that of a hereditary aristocracy (especially so in the case of Venice, after the Serrata). If the scholars don't have a problem with using the term "nobility", and as long as we take care not to imply that Venetian nobility was a feudal nobility, then I don't really see a problem. The average reader will still understand what we mean, because "nobility" was not and is not exclusively of the feudal kind; it denotes rather a social class, which is what the patriciate was. Constantine ✍ 14:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually in Genoa it did, which was my point. Elsewhere too for all I know. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I did not know that. But this does not negate the point made repeatedly above: the patriciate is a form of nobility, and the Venetian patriciate is called a nobility pretty clearly by authoritative sources, who probably know (and care) more about such distinctions than us. Constantine ✍ 15:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Constantine! During you edition on Siege of Chandax you commented on one of the summaries that Norwich is not a reliable source and removed all the mention to him on the article? Is it a source to avoid or a source to in fact ignore? I ask that because on Byzantine Empire (and on the Portuguese version, where lots of material from here were translated) have some information with only Norwich as a source for.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Renato de carvalho ferreira! Norwich is an excellent introduction into Byzantine history for the average layperson, as he writes very engagingly, which is why he is often used (he was the entry point for Byzantine history for myself, BTW), but he is definitely not a reliable scholar. His history reflects the state of research of decades ago, and his work is riddled with a number of misconceptions and errors in detail. Whenever I have had opportunity to mention him to academic historians, the response was a polite chuckle. I would definitely recommend not using him. If you want to use a generalist work on Byzantine history, use Treadgold (although again, with care; he is not always on the same page as his colleagues). Constantine ✍ 08:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the issue. I try as much as possible do the same as you, putting just the newest authors and theories. And talking about the same article, I saw even during the original expansion of the Portuguese version of the Byzantine Empire years ago that the English version has lots of paragraphs lacking notes, specially after the sections about history, and it is a feature article. I think that this needed to be fixed, because we can confirm if the information there is correct or not. Cheers!--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Using the space while I wait your answer, there is something more bothering me. I was translation the entry to Theophano's father and mother on the Online Prosopography, and during the translation I didn't get the meaning of two points. Could you help me out? Here they are: "[...] Laut der Vita Theophanus waren die beiden zunächst kinderlos und beteten deshalb in der Theotokoskirche ἐν τοῖς Βάσσου. Daraufhin wurde ihnen eines Nachts im Traum die Geburt einer Tochter geweissagt. Als A. während der Entbindung dem Tod nahe war, holte ihr Mann aus der Bassoskirche einen Gürtel von einer der hl. (σεβασμίων) Säulen und legte ihn ihr auf die Hüfte." (the bold ones; the link here). I understood that the first reference is about Theotokos' Church, but I didn't get which one. The second I understood is a sacred belt, but I don't know from whom, and I thought the sentence indicates it. And another thing, according to all entries about Theophano's family, her family name wasn't "Martiniake/Martiniakos" as all the wiki articles suggest. According to the prosopography it is "Martinakios, Martenakios or Martinakes" (here).--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the article on the Byzantine Empire needs extensive work, but I've never had the time to devote to it. "Theotokoskirche ἐν τοῖς Βάσσου" would be "Church of the Theotokos in the place 'of Bassos'", in Greek ta Bassou (a quarter or monastery), hence in English either "Church of the Theotokos in ta Bassou" or "Church of the Theotokos Bassou". "Bassoskirche einen Gürtel von einer der hl. (σεβασμίων) Säulen" means that "[her husband took from] the Bassos church a belt from one of the holy columns". Regarding Theophano, this probably resulted from a misspelling of her father'r name, from Martinakios -> Martiniakos. I'll fix it ASAP, thanks for the heads up. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Please see this [1] [2]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

You haven't explained the move. Xx236 (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Nagara Point is the common name found "in Western sources", as stated in the article. Nara Burnu is (obviously) the Turkish name, since it is a site in Turkey. Constantine ✍ 13:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

But the Wikipedia is English.Xx236 (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

See my reply on the move proposal. Constantine ✍ 14:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that Crete is one of the Greek islands and thus is a part of Greece, but Crete & Greece are separate countries and no part of the film was actuly set in mainland Greece, it was all set in Crete -- SteveCrook (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"Crete & Greece are separate countries"? You are seriously misinformed, I am afraid... Constantine ✍ 21:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it is  :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! I was reading this article, another masterpiece of yours I must say (something that as soon as possible I'm going to translate for sure), and I didn't see any mention to Niketas Skleros. According to Skleros' family article, maybe he was the admiral of the imperial fleet during the time he was sent to the Magyars, but I'm not sure about that. The Prosopography at least doesn't make such supposition and mentions only his diplomatic expedition. Cheers.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Renato! IIRC, that is the Niketas listed as known only from his seal. Seibt apparently suggested (I don't have access to him) that he was identical to Niketas Skleros, which is repeated by Whittow and the others (see here). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Constantine – You may not have much interest in this article on the Getae, but I think you will be able to judge the recent edits by two different users with red user names. I just wonder if the added material in both cases is original research.  – Corinne (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi, by chance I noticed a sentence which you added to the Pessinus page back in 2009: "The area remained under Byzantine control until lost to the Seljuk Turks in the latter 11th century, after which Pessinus became an inconspicuous mountain village at 900m height, gradually getting depopulated since it was fully protected."

This seems very strange. Why should a place become "gradually depopulated" because it "it was fully protected"? This seems completely illogical. Makes more sense that it was gradually repopulated.

I don't know if you still remember making this edit, but if you can I suggest you look up the source you used. Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Blanche of King's Lynn, this was actually a carry-over from the previous version, and has been in the article since 2005 ([3]). I also have no idea what it is supposed to have meant. --Constantine ✍ 13:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you think it would be acceptable to make the logical correction and change "depopulated" into "repopulated", or do you feel that one can't do that without finding some reliable source? I know that historians poring over ancient manuscripts, and finding an illogical statement which would become logical by changing one character, assume "scribal error". And that could happen also in the modern age, to people writing on their word processors. Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Constantine – You haven't edited since 2 December. I hope all is well with you and that you'll return to editing soon. Best wishes for the holidays, too. I wonder if you'd look at this edit to Mithridates IV of Pontus. Besides a misleading edit summary, I thought words written in Greek were not supposed to be italicized.  – Corinne (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, again, Constantine – I wonder if you could help figure something out at Talk:Hermeticism#Renaissance.  – Corinne (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Konstandinos. This is User:DemocraticSocialism speaking to you. I noticed you are opposed to the potential merger between the "List of Roman emperors" and the "List of Byzantine emperors" articles. Now, I'm for it, but since there is no clear consensus (as the user Dr.K. so helpfully pointed out), I can't really merge the articles without a (forgive my language) shitstorm descending on me. So, I've decided to make a compromise solution: merge the two articles, but move the articles to the new title, "List of Roman and Byzantine emperors". I'm going around to all the editors involved in the debate, trying to get their support, starting with you. Please write back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocraticSocialism (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andronikos Doukas Angelos 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 Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ealdgyth, the very best wishes for you and your loved ones! --Constantine ✍ 13:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there really any point to this? The more a tree proliferates little twiglets, which many readers miss, its utility dimishes, so long as the main category is not too crowded, which it is not in this case. It should really be called Category:Individual amphorae for clarity - there are a few actual and many more potential generic articles on amphorae. Given we have an article on Nolan amphora, how do you justify not including it here? Or amphora itself? In many cases the shape used is not an especially useful basis for classification. If you felt the itch to sub-categorize, then geography, colour scheme or date might have been better choices. I do hope you are not going to create further categories of this type for other shapes. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. An amphora is different to a kylix or to other vase types; that is why a dedicated article on the type exists in the first place. Ipso facto, we are dealing with a category of objects. The fact that such categories exist in other wikis independently of myself points to that fact. Whether it is justified on the number of articles is a rather subjective criterion, but as more and more articles about individual objects are being translated from the German wiki, which has plenty, I feel it justified. As the articles multiply, then "geography, colour scheme or date" do indeed become additional options. On the utility of specialized categories, I think we disagree on a fundamental basis. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You have now just removed Category:Amphorae as a sub-cat of the individual vases category. If this is a prelude to re-adding them there, fine. Otherwise it is clearly wrong. What's the idea. I wish you'd get back to doing something useful, like writing articles. Unfortunately, most readers are unaware the categoery system even exists. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi thank you for pointing that out to me. I had edited the article and had a source but after reviewing the source and deeming it unreliable I forgot to change the strength numbers to their original values. Also for the battle of Preveza the information added was one word to help better describe the outcome I will get a source for that today. To claim that I have vandalized these articles is a little ridiculous. Anyways in proper Canadian fashion I'm sorry, I've cocked up the edit for the battle of Vaslui. TheTruth1453 (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Constantine – I was looking at the latest edit to Sol Invictus, and I saw that a "By who" tag had been added to a sentence that reads "this passage is generally considered a late interpolation". I figured "is generally considered" means "is generally considered by scholars in the field", but is that clear enough without explicitly mentioning who generally considers it an interpolation? If not, then this type of passive voice sentence would have to be fixed in an awful lot of WP articles.  – Corinne (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: Hmm, the meaning is rather clear, but in such cases it is always helpful to add the relevant reference directly after the statement. And at least in my articles I try to use multiple references to back this up, otherwise perhaps consider stating "according to X, modern scholarship generally considers" etc. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! I'll take a look at it again.  – Corinne (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The article Battle of Gallipoli (1416) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Gallipoli (1416) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Alex Shih -- Alex Shih (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Constantine – Best wishes to you for 2018! If you have time, could you check these changes to Chthonic? The only thing I even comprehend about this is the addition of italics, which I'm not sure are necessary.  – Corinne (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, and likewise all the best for the new year! The edits seem to be legitimate, the italics are commonly added after non-Latin alphabets, there's nothing wrong with that. Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 09:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ottoman conquest of Lesbos 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I changed it to Tiberius IV because a large amount of sources refer to him as such. It’s a weird name to be sure, but since he was historically adjacent to 2/3 other Tiberius’, it makes sense to distinguish him, especially when strongly backed by sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Iazyges! Can you please give me a sample of the "large amount of sources"? I remember having seen this in some 19th-century works, but that is it. AFAIK, no modern source in Byzantine studies uses the number. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: I've compiled a sample below. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The list isn't complete, and isn't exceptionally long, but the list of sources that did reference him is small,. He does almost always accompany 2-3 other Tiberius', and he's very close to many historically speaking, so I think it's much more useful to call him Tiberius IV. (Plus, if we're being really technical, he was a sole Emperor for a few hours.). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Per my comments on the sources below, this is rather problematic. About the only sources that mention him as "Tiberius IV" are numismatic journals, who have tendency to reproduce one another (you can check the references they use, they begin in the 19th century). Numismaticists are not Byzantinists, however. Also, given the apparent use of the name for his great-uncle, I would avoid being so explicit in assigning it to either of them. A dab page or a note that they are "sometimes" called "Tiberius IV" would be fine, however. --Constantine ✍ 14:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

List is not full, only contains English sources (found a small number of German ones)

• The Boston Museum of Fine Arts calls him Tiberius IV, although its worth noting they don't show pictures (presumably 706–711 coins with Justinian II and Tiberius IV though).
• Venning, Timothy; Harris, Jonathan (2006). A Chronology of the Byzantine Empire. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230505865. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (Same pages as cited in article).
• Young, George (1992). Constantinople. New York: Barnes & Noble. p. 302. ISBN 9781566190848. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• "The Augustan". Augustan Society. 21–22: 157. 1981. OCLC 6839454. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
• "The Journal of Hellenic Studies". Council of the Society. Volume 55. 1976. OCLC 1754613. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
• Thomsen, Christian Jürgensen; Stahl, Alan M.; Berman, Allen G. (1991). Medieval Coins in the Christian J. Thomsen collection: Byzantine, Dark Ages, Crusder, Islamic, England, Serbia, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, and the Low countries. Attic Books. p. 41. ISBN 9780915018338. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Mooradian, Karlen (1978). Arshile Gorky Adoian. Gilgamesh Press. p. 221. OCLC 4424459.
• Whitting, Philip D. (1973). Byzantine coins. Putnam. OCLC 466311638.

(edit conflict) Hmmm, the first example is labelled "artwork" by a 16th-century Flemish painter, so I don't think that has anything to do with who we are talking about. Venning I am aware of, but do not consider him exactly a WP:RS; he is a tertiary source at best, and I have found many dubious entries in his work. The Augustan is a genealogical magazine, hence irrelevant (I also see they mention a "Tiberius V", and consider both him and "Tiberius IV" to be among "the most important" Byzantine emperors, which is hogwash). About the only serious reference is the JHS (p. 110 "bulla of Justinian II and Tiberius IV"), and indeed it appears the most common reference to "Tiberius IV" is to be found in numismatics-related publications. Also, I note that in a few sources (e.g. [4]), the name is assigned to Tiberius (son of Constans II) as well, who was also a co-emperor to Constantine IV. All in all, and especially given the latter, I am not convinced about the utility of applying the name to any of them. Constantine ✍ 14:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I've seen mention to Constans II's son as Tiberius III, although I'd say that one isn't a helpful move, since Tiberios III exists closeby. Haven't seen him called Tiberius IV. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd also argue that the main body of them being numismatic does not prevent the moving to Tiberius IV. Tiberius IV is likely a modern name for him, made out of convenience, but from what I've seen it is consistently applied, and we must remember that even the Byzantine Empire is a modern name made out of convenience (although I'll admit its become rapidly standardized). -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, per policy we are obliged to use what "expert sources" write. Numismaticists are experts on coins, not on Byzantine emperors. This is how the actual experts write of him. Constantine ✍ 14:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

In brief, the use of the name is documented, but in a very specific field, which is not the *primary* field of the subject. As such, it merits inclusion in the article, but not as the primary name, especially when its application is inconsistent (i.e., great-uncle). Constantine ✍ 14:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Andronikos Doukas Angelos you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Andronikos Doukas Angelos for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Isaac Komnenos (brother of Alexios I) 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alexios Komnenos (protosebastos) 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Copy edit pretty much done. I will have another run through it when my eyes are fresh - in 24-48 hours. Let me know of any qualms, or just revert them; I have tried to amend in easy, bite size pieces. On the talk page I have left 3 outstanding copy edit queries, and a minor one, which could do with resolving.

A fascinating article. I really enjoyed working on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Gog the Mild, very much appreciated! I'll have a look at your edits over the next few days. --Constantine ✍ 10:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I had a look, and everything seems to be in order, I did not detect any change that somehow impacted the meaning of the narrative. I will tackle the talk page issues when I have a bit more time. Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 13:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cplakidas. I'll mark it as done at GOCE. I will still have another look at it when my eyes are fresh, just to make sure I haven't left any obvious typos in. And, obviously, will respond to whatever your thoughts are on the talk page queries. And good luck with the FAC; it looks as if the article is ready for it to my untutored eye. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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 tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Cplakidas. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Andronikos Doukas Angelos at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!  – Corinne (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Constantine, I wanted to mention just one thing:

In the second-to-last paragraph in the Andronikos Doukas Angelos#Life section is the following sentence:

• Kamateros, Kontostephanos and four of his sons, as well as many other members of the conspiracy, were seized and blinded, but the Angeloi escaped.

I think the average Wikipedia reader may not know that "the Angeloi" means the members of the Angelos family. I wonder if there is an easy way to clarify this, by using the names of Andronikos and his sons, a brief explanatory phrase, or a link. By the way, I agree with your comment toward the end of the GA review in which you say, "I don't really agree that "encyclopaedic tone" is incompatible with a less-than-bone-dry narrative." I also think varying the sentence structure throughout an article makes the article much more interesting to read.  – Corinne (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your edits and kind comments, Corinne! Good point about the "Angeloi", I've replaced it with "Andronikos and his sons", as elsewhere. Constantine ✍ 12:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Ottoman conquest of Lesbos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ottoman conquest of Lesbos for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Constantine, wish a happy new year! I've noticed that there was a second (minor) theme apart from the one that's in the Pontic inland which's also called Koloneia. I assume "Koloneia (Epirus)" will be a good title in this case. Cheers!Alexikoua (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alexi! Yes, I know, but the latter is not really notable as a theme of its own. It was one of the many dozens of smaller themes established in the period; it was essentially little more than the district around Koloneia (Kolonjë, Korçë), and of unknown duration. Any relevant information should be added there. Constantine ✍ 15:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I found a map of this theme as part of the Despotate of Epirus in 1210 ([[5]] by Osswald). It appears it covered a much larger area compared to the modern Kolonje roughly stretching from Konitsa to Berat.Alexikoua (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This thesis is truly a great find, thanks. However, again you see what I mean: the theme existed until well into the 13th century, but how often is it mentioned? A handful of times in a work of 800+ pages, and then only in the context of its mention in the Partitio Romaniae. Plus the borders of the theme are obviously conjectural. The usual (and IMO correct) practice with such provinces is to include the information in the eponymous city, as the province itself is not really notable on its own. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added some additional info there but I'm afraid this may create wp:UNDUE issues with the already existing article.Alexikoua (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Which "existing article"? If you mean the article on Kolonjë, I doubt it. It is part of the city's and its region's history. --Constantine ✍ 20:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I mean Kolonjë, Korçë. As for the Byzantine garrison of Koloneia I admit I couldn't find something about it apart from the approximate location somewhere west of Grammos.Alexikoua (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I've created a map based on Osswald about medieval Epirus. I'm open to suggestions [[6]].Alexikoua (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. It seems that every time I find myself thinking "This is a good article" it turns out that you have been there before me improving it. You are currently upgrading, or have recently upgraded, a whole series of articles, many of them in areas which I am interested in. You don't seem to have been awarded this barnstar yet, for the creation of good articles. I have no idea why not. Simon Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

		The Feather Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar in recognition of your persistent effort in generating consistently high quality good articles, and for the pleasure which those articles have given me. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your kind words Gog the Mild! Much appreciated, especially coming from you. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 20:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This SPI may interest you. Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Aṭlas. This does indeed look like a WP:DUCK. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The admin confirmed three other sockpuppets.-Aṭlas (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

As suspected; this was some kind of deep-trolling operation. Thanks a lot Aṭlas for filing the report. Constantine ✍ 18:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:V.K. Kokkinaki.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Isaac Komnenos (brother of Alexios I) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Isaac Komnenos (brother of Alexios I) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Isaac Komnenos (brother of Alexios I) 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! Makeandtoss (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Guy Pallavicini 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I just moved my finished draft of Avar–Byzantine wars into mainspace, and I was wondering if you would be willing to look it over and tell me if I can improve it and how. Thanks! -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Alexios Komnenos (protosebastos) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alexios Komnenos (protosebastos) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Guy Pallavicini you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Guy Pallavicini for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Andronikos Doukas Angelos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andronikos Doukas Angelos for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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 Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

Any opposition to moving Constantine, son of Theophilos to Constantine (son of Theophilos)? It seems to be the dominant format for junior emperors if they have a common name. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Iazyges, no problem, go ahead. Constantine ✍ 07:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Καλησπέρα, βρήκα αυτή την εκπληκτική φωτογραφία στο commons:File:Guillaume Berggren - Panorama of Constantinople (1880s).jpg και αφότου την έσπασα σε επιμέρους τμήματα αναρωτιέμαι αν θα μπορούσες να προσθέσεις κάποιες επιπλέον πληροφορίες για το επιπλέον τμήμα (ποιές περιοχές απεικονίζονται) καθώς γνωρίζεις καλά την γεωγραφία της πόλης και αντίστοιχα αν μπορείς να ζητήσεις μετονομασία των αρχείων ανάλογα με την απεικονιζόμενη περιοχή (π.χ. στην παρένθεση να αναφέρεται η περιοχή αντί για το fold, ή και το fold και το όνομα της περιοχής). Gts-tg (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Όντως εξαιρετικό εύρημα Gts-tg. Θα κοιτάξω να προσθέσω πληροφορίες το Σ/Κ. Constantine ✍ 12:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Ωραία, ως bonus κοινοποιώ και το commons:File:Constantinopolis - Matthäus Merian - 1635.jpg. Gts-tg (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cplakidas. You created this article 8 years ago. I am giving it a copy edit, hoping to get it up to B class. It seemed courteous to let you know. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, thanks for the heads up, and for taking this on. I am unfortunately rather swamped in real life, so go ahead with my blessing :). Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 19:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cplakidas. Having got Leo up to B class I have found another source, added material and am thinking of going for GA. It has been suggested (by Cinderella157) that you may be interested in co-nominating the article. If so, I would be flattered. If not I would still be interested in any views you may have on it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Good to see you back editing. I hope that your real life issues have calmed down. Thanks for your attentions to Leo. In particular for sorting out the encyclopedia cite. I knew that I had that wrong and was hoping that someone would sort it so that I could file it for future reference. In the absence of any word from you I had just asked GOCE to look it over for a copy edit. Cinderella157 has also volunteered to give an opinion. After your work I am tempted to put it straight up for GAN, co-nominated if that is ok with you, and ask Cinderella157 if they would care to do the assessing. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, yeah, I think it would be a great idea! I think the article is already up to GA standards, so that shouldn't be a problem (although finding a reviewer might be, I suggest adding it under the "Warfare" category, as MILHIST editors are more active in reviewing GANs). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not symbol designed by me, you can find examples of usage at official YSEE page: https://www.ysee.gr. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Principality of Samos, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering if you had any plan to nominate Constantine (son of Leo V) for GA. You haven't edited the article for about eight years, so I assumed not, but thought I should ask you first before I tried to take it across the line. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Same question with Theophylact (son of Michael I), Christopher Lekapenos, and others. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Iazyges, no, not really. The articles are somewhat complete, I dare say, and most likely up to GA standard, but I am always somewhat hesitant for such short articles (although formally GA has no least size requirements). If you want to, go ahead. I am too busy in RL right now to do it properly. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cplakidas. Can you expand this articlec from this page [7]? Because it has a lot of information. It is similar to Boniface of Verona. Cheers. Kardam (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kardam! I am rather busy in RL at the moment. but I am definitely putting this in my todo list. Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 12:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Cplakidas,

I was looking at the page Constans II (usurper), and thought it was odd that the title named him an usurper, given that his father, Constantine III (Western Roman Emperor), was recognized by the "legitimate" Western Roman Emperor from the beginning of his reign to the end. I thought a move was in order, but wasn't sure if Constans II (Western Roman Emperor) or Constans II (Caesar) was more fitting. Thoughts?

Thanks. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, technically he was a usurper as his elevation to Augustus was illegal; as such the title is correct. "Caesar" is incorrect, as he held a superior title, that of Augustus. "Western Roman Emperor" is likewise problematic since his rise to Augustus was illegal and never recognized, and naming him thus is not according to usual practice. You might be better served with more neutral disambiguating factors such as "Constans II (5th century)", "Constans II (Western Roman Empire)", or "Constans II (son of Constantine III)" that sidestep his title entirely. OTOH, this might be a case of WP:BROKEN. I defer to your judgment, however. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you did a great job on Develtos, and I'd be grateful if you had a look at what I've done with Adramyttium and Abydos whenever you're free. I'm less happy with Abydos and I think I'll add to it in the near future. Mugsalot (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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 a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi, would you please take a look at Requested move 8 March 2018, relating the general article on anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. Thanks. Sorabino (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I am going through his edits and slowly fixing the messes that he left behind. Specifically unnecessary redirects. Would appreciate another editor to help me out here. Also, can someone please help me with the speedys? Merci beaucoup. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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 looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Al-Adil ibn al-Sallar 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Can you slow down a bit? Or better yet, bring up any ideas for changes to the article on the talk page please? This is a featured article candidate. There should not be that many amendments to the article without hefty discussion. You are also introducing typos and duplicate links that I have already had to fix. Please refrain from further editing until I can assess all of the changes that you have made. Thank you, though, for pointing out the prisoner thing that needed to be clarified in regards to Bibulus. That was a mistake of mine when shifting material over to the Reign of Cleopatra sub-article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pericles of Athens! I'll slow down, no problem. It is just that I find it more economical to not produce a long list of minor suggested copyedits, but actually fix them myself. Since you don't like it, I'll gather them for my review. However, you mentioned "typos"? I apologize in advance for introducing any, but I would like to know where? Also, regarding "duplicate links", the article is full of them, and would require a major cleanup per MOS:DUPLINK, but again, where did I do that? I rather tried to remove some of the less successful links, and those I introduced where when the first mention of an event or person occurred, which is the correct practice. Constantine ✍ 19:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. You changed "which" to "whio", which I had to change to "who" in one edit for a footnote in the Childhood, tutelage, and exile. Plus Upper Egypt is already linked in a section below. If you want to introduce new links, please check the entire article first to see if what you are linking is already linked in the prose (obviously the lead section, the info box, image captions, further info links, and the external links section don't matter). I know it is strict, but this is something that someone could complain about in the FA review. Thanks once again for pointing out the problem with the statement on Bibulus, though. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's pretty cool that you fixed the Greek transliteration to Ancient Greek for Cleopatra's phrase uttered to Octavian: "οὑ θριαμβεύσομαι". I wasn't aware that an ancient Greek language code option was available! Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome :). Amazing work BTW on the article so far, I will continue reviewing in the evening and post my review after. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 06:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied to you on the FAC review page! Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

...I hope I didn't offend you somehow. If so I apologize. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pericles of Athens, not at all, I've just been a bit busy both in RL and with other minor things in WP. Your article deserves undivided attention, and I had scheduled it for another pass tomorrow :). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That's good to know! Thanks for responding. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again! I made a response at the FAC review. I hope the recent changes are enough for your liking. As for the proposed map, I'll try to contact someone competent enough to make one for Wikimedia Commons, but I can't promise success in that department. It's a true shame that there isn't a single suitable map in all of Wikimedia Commons for that purpose. C'est la vie! Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pericles of Athens! I'll have another look tomorrow. I also had a look through my own map and atlas collection to see if any suitable material can be found, and the Historischer Atlas der antiken Welt has some excellent maps (especially [8]). If you find a good mapmaker, I can send you some good material to base yourselves on. Constantine ✍ 21:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You'll be happy to know I lodged a formal request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop for a map of Ptolemaic Egypt during Cleopatra's reign. Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi again! I responded to you on the FAC page. I think I know why you're having that problem with the images and have since removed the {{clear}} template from the "Greco-Roman busts" sub-section. Do let me know if that has made an immediate improvement. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Fardykambos 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andronikos Komnenos (son of Alexios I) 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nikephoros Komnenos (brother of Alexios I) 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Cplakidas,

Nice to meet you. Thank you for joining.

There's a lot going on...

Our most urgent task right now is to get the core of this navigation system, the list of viewable portals at Portal:Contents/Portals, up to date! There are about 400 existing portals not listed there. They are listed on its talk page, with instructions. The viewable ones need to be added to the main list. We need everyone's attention on this. If everyone processed 10 titles from the missing list, the chore would be done. Please chip in.

There's a flurry of activity on portals. If you'd like to watch what is going on, use Related changes on the sidebar menu on the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Watchlist.

Speaking of watchlists, if you use yours often, please watchlist the WikiProject page. The more eyes on it, the better.

One of the key areas of activity is work being done on the Template:Transclude lead excerpt. Users are needed for testing it. It's design discussions are taking place at the WikiProject's talk page.

And of course, many portals need work. But which ones should we work on first? Well, the main example given at the RfC of the problems of portals was Portal:Cricket. Therefore, it's the top priority portal to update. Please lend a hand.

Well, that's all for now.    — The Transhumanist   17:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

We now have 52 members, and more are joining daily.

Attention portal maintainers!

There's a new template to improve existing and new portals, called {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

It is a lot easier to use than copying and pasting text from articles, as it displays the paragraphs you specify automatically for you.

It makes excerpts so that they are always current and never go stale or fork.

It is more powerful than it looks, because it has the Lua Module:Excerpt supporting it.

Be careful, as it is alpha software. Please notify the WikiProject talkpage of any problems you come across.

To give you a sense of the reaction this template is generating, here is an excerpt of a discussion thread from the WikiProject's talk page:

• This new template is fantastic. I've added it to the intro sections of the portals on Australian cities (eg P:PER) and it works brilliantly. My compliments to its creators. It can probably also be used in other sections of many portals (eg "Selected article" and "Selected biography"), and, for that reason, will probably make the task of maintaining portals a great deal easier. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you for being so brave. Portal:Adelaide/Intro just got a lot simpler! Certes (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Kudos on a wonderful template.    — The Transhumanist   03:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is amazing stuff. I'm going to get to work on using it on the selected content at most of these portals very soon. WaggersTALK 13:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I wrote a comment in the the April 26 section of the RfC explaining what we are up to. I liked the excerpt above so much, that I went back to my RfC posting, and inserted it.

What's this? An old oil lamp. It's so dirty, I think I'll polish it...

*poof*

Whoa! Are you a WikiGenie? In that case, I get 3 wishes!

I wish...

1. ...that Portal:Contents/Portals becomes up-to-date.   (The missing entries are listed on the talk page, with instructions).
2. ...the WikiProject to have Article Alerts.   ({{WikiProject Portals}} templates have already been placed on all portal talk pages).
3. ...that Portal:Cricket becomes a shining example of portal excellence.   (It was the main example of a crappy and unmaintained portal at the RfC).

Please make my wishes come true. See you around the portals!    — The Transhumanist   08:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)