This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ichthyovenator. 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.
Hey, I've been slowly reading to eventually get the Kassia article to GA (haven't done much but the secular writings section thus far). I noticed your fantastic work on Theodora (wife of Theophilos), which of course involves Kassia. Firstly, I should say that quite a few sources I've come across express doubt (or note doubt by other scholars) that the brideshow even happened, though I can't recall if the doubt centers around the event itself or merely Kassia's participation (I can check in tomorrow). Also, in preparation for Kassia I've read quite a bit about Byzantine Iconoclasm now, but still find myself a bit confused. If you could confirm, before Byzantine Iconoclasm, icons were allowed, then there was a movement against them, which failed—then there was a second movement against them, which also failed? Kassia, as I understand it, supported icons. And also, on the word "iconoclast", "Jim the iconoclast" would means that Jim was against icons, right? Sorry for all the questions, and no worries if you don't have the time or interest to comment. Best – Aza24 (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: Hello! The sources I used for Theodora all seem to discuss the bride-show as an actual event (these appear to have been done for quite a lot of emperors) but Kassia may or may not have been involved. The story of Kassia there and Emperor Theophilos's catastrophic pick up line to her comes from Symeon Logothete who wrote in the 10th century (about a century or so later).
Iconoclasm was instituted under Emperor Leo III in 726–729 (icons had been perfectly fine up until then). Icons were then restored in 787 by Irene of Athens while she was regent for her young son Constantine VI, but Iconoclasm was reinstated under Leo V in 815. The Second Iconoclasm lasted until Theodora got rid off it in 843. Kassia, like Theodora, was a iconophile/iconodule so she supported icons, yes. And yeah, "Jim the iconoclast" would mean that Jim was against icons. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for all of this. The iconoclasm stuff you've explained basically conforms to what I thought, but it seemed worth it to double check given its a topic I've really never engaged with. BTW, if I could steal your time a little bit more, I was working on a List of Byzantine composers—for some context at the top of the table of composers I put "The death of Theodosius I in 395 causes the permanent division of the Western Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire"—would this be a fair way to put it? Best – Aza24 (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: No problem. There's a lot of technicalities involved with "The death of Theodosius I in 395 causes the permanent division of the Western Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire" — the Romans themselves never considered the empire to have been divided (but instead to be a single empire, run by two emperors); the date for when "Rome" ends and "Byzantium" begins can vary quite a lot from scholar to scholar since it's term we used today and not something that was in contemporary use etc. etc. — but it follows what pretty much is the mainline historigraphical interpretation and it's unnecessary to go into any sort of detail on geopolitics and historiography in a list of composers. I think it's a fair way to put it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theodora (wife of Theophilos) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thekla (daughter of Theophilos) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Thekla (daughter of Theophilos) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thekla (daughter of Theophilos) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Roman people you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roman people for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello Ichthyovenator! Congratulations on finally - finally, after such a mammoth review process - getting Roman people to GA status! It was truly a pleasure working with you to ensure Wikipedia adequately represents this important topic.
@Gug01: Thank you! It is almost difficult to believe that the review is finally over. It was a pleasure working with you as well! I feel like many other reviewers would have given up and failed the article. When I joined Wikipedia I worked pretty much exclusively on paleontology articles so the account is named after the dinosaur Ichthyovenator. It's not particularly fitting since I don't really eat much fish but what can you do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Theodora (wife of Theophilos) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Theodora (wife of Theophilos) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ulpia Severina 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) 05:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Mutinensis gr. 122
On 21 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mutinensis gr. 122, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mutinensis gr. 122(page pictured) is the only surviving manuscript to include portraits of all Byzantine emperors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mutinensis gr. 122. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mutinensis gr. 122), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The article Ulpia Severina you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ulpia Severina for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alexios V of Trebizond 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 Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Roman emperors' list
Hi. I hope not to sound like a stalker, but I came across the Roman emperors table in your userspace, and was naturally interested since I myself have contributed significantly to the mainspace list. It would be unfortunate if our individual efforts end up conflicting or cancelling out each other's whenever one of us decides to do large overwriting edits on the main article. With that in mind, would you accept a couple of suggestions (mainly source recommendations)? Just to see if we can avoid diverging significantly and having disagreements in the future.
First, a couple months ago, I added a massive number of references to the De Imperatoribus Romanis website in the mainspace list, and, since you appear to have copied that one to use as a starting point, yours likewise follows this pattern. I know DIR is probably reliable, but I only added those citations because I wasn't aware of that many other good sources at the time, and I don't think such reliance on a non-paginated web source is a good idea. Right now, I think that two good enough sources for general use are Kienast's Römische Kaisertabelle (which I had already included months ago) and Michael Grant's The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome, 31 BC–AD 476. I just now made some improvements to the Julio-Claudian section (all in the mainspace) using Kienast and Grant, and I think the result may well be good enough for a featured list; I'm planning on doing the same for more entries. So, in short, Kienast and Grant are two sources I recommend for most emperors pre-395 or pre-476. Kienast can be obtained for free on Libgen, while Internet Archive has a loophole that allows you to see a limited number of pages per day of Grant's book.
As for the 3rd century, for when the DIR and some other sources become confused in matters of chronology (like Maximinus, the Gordians, and Valerian), the best source is probably Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235–284 by Michael Peachin (1990). I'm not aware of any other piece of modern scholarship that significantly contradicts him. This one you can also download for free on Libgen.
@Avilich: I've actually used DIR and (with some minor differences) the text content from the current version specifically to avoid diverging and disagreements 🙃. DIR is indeed the main source for the Principate in my current draft but I'll have a look at replacing it eventually then. Right now I'm trying to get through all the Byzantines, who are unsourced in the current list (here I've just been employing print sources).
You're welcome to contribute to the pre-476 parts of my draft if you want to: if we combine our efforts (either here or when I try to add this in later) I'm sure pushing this to a featured list is possible. The only big format differences to the current version is that I've separated out references to their own column (as in here, makes them easier to access I think), changed how co-emperors are shown from the late 4th century onwards (since they usually are left out entirely and I feel this is cleaner) and marked some figures as of "ambiguous legitimacy" (those who fulfill the cited list inclusion criteria but are still varyingly described either as emperor or usurper in the sources). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Do you think a separate column just for the citation is necessary? IMO a single citation beside the age at death, where they're not so visible and won't take up any space, would work better. I also think 'death by natural causes' isn't important information. Anyway, I brought over to your list some content and sources I put on the mainspace list, though I changed nothing of the format. Avilich (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@Avilich: A separate column is not strictly necessary IMO but I feel like just having the citation besides the age at death makes it seem like it is just a reference for the age at death. There isn't a lot of precedent to go on in terms of this since the currently featured monarchs lists are either a bit sub-par (the List of French monarchs barely has citations and would not survive a review today) or cited in a somewhat obnoxious way (the List of emperors of the Han dynasty has multiple citations per entry in different places). I'm open to other ideas but I think I'll at least keep the extra column while working on the draft since it's then easy to see which entries have references so far.
I don't think death by natural causes is very important either but it felt like not writing anything left the impression that the cause of death was not known (this might just be me though). You could argue that it's somewhat of an achievement to not die by unnatural causes if you're a Roman emperor.
Added content and sources looks good. Unless you get to it first I'll eventually follow suit for the other Principate + Dominate emperors with these sources. Is there a reason for giving Augustus two dates (and giving both 27 BC and 43 BC, but not the 31 BC one)? His article just uses 27 BC which is also the one I usually encounter. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
With regards to Augustus, he officially reckoned his 'reign' from 7 January 43 BC, the year he acquired his imperium, never to relinquish it. The ancient sources also thought that Augustus reigned 56 and not 40 years, so it seemed appropriate to include this date there (feel free to remove it if you think it's not worth mentioning). Although 31 BC is of course a logical date too (I did notice your 31 BC there), I couldn't find any significant support in the sources for that one; it is, in the end, a purely informal designation based on the date of a battle. Avilich (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@Avilich: makes sense. I think we should follow what modern historians do (Charles II of England dated his accession to 1649 but today it tends to be dated to 1660) but the 43 BC date should absolutely be mentioned in some capacity. If there are enough modern sources placing the beginning of his reign in 43 BC rather than 27 BC (a quick look through Google Scholar and Google Books suggests that there are quite a few so shouldn't be a problem but I'll look more thoroughly later) it should be fine to include both like this, otherwise IMO it could be included either in a note or in the "succession" column. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be better (and easier) to just put 27 BC and explain the rest in 'Succession' or 'Notes'. Yes, ancient sources do give him a reign of "56 years", although almost none of them coincides on the exact date. Augustus did commemorate his granting of imperium every year, but I don't think it would be accurate to use it in this context. According to Herbert-Brown: "7 January was the anniversary of his accession to legal power, authorized by the governing body [...] But it was by no stretch of the imagination the greatest power or honour he attained. Nor does he say as much." I find 31 BC to be a more convincing starting point, as it marked the beginning of Octavian's de facto (not de jure) rule, but for some reason ancient historians prefered to date it soon after Caesar's murder (maybe as a result of propaganda?). But still, all three dates should be mentioned in some way. Tintero21 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Tintero21:@Avilich: I don't feel strongly about this either way so if you two come to an agreement I'm fine with however this is handled. The inconsistent ways to date his reign should be mentioned in some capacity (whether that's best done under "reign", "succession" or in note form is up to you). It is possible to fit two dates in the "reign" column but more than that would not look very good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
You could dump all alternative dates on a footnote, of course, but nothing in Herbert-Brown invalidates 43 BC or suggests any other year. Augustus never relinquished the imperium he received that date, so it's an inherently appropriate and plausible starting point for his reign. Conversely, there's no constitutional change associated with the year 31 BC, and practically no source adopts it for the start of the Roman Empire. For now, the sources support those two dates, so our options as editors are limited. Perhaps one could add that 43 BC was Augustus's own date, but I'm not seeing much of a case to change the basic thing as it stands. Avilich (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
My main issue with 43 BC is that it gives the impression the Augustus ""reigned"" much longer the he actually did. Maybe we could mention −in a note− that most ancient historians give him 56 years, but I can't find any source that directly states this (the alternative is to put some primary sources). At the end I have no problem in keeping the two reign-lengths as they are, I just think it should be somewhat elaborated. Tintero21 (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there some logic for the column lengths I'm missing? The percentages you put there don't add up to 100% and the Name column is too thick, causing some ugly line breaks in the dates. Avilich (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@Avilich: No there's no logic. I just made something that I thought looked good and didn't even notice the percentages not adding up to 100 %. If there is no blank space around the images and if it's applied consistently it can be changed to something better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there was blank space in any of the arrangements I tried, yet you reverted them all! Anyway, my concern was just that the column for names is unnecessarily thick (given that it's mostly empty space), and the others were not enough, like the regnal dates of Augustus, with those line breaks. Avilich (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@Avilich: Yeah I know, sorry about that. I thought you were accidentally altering the columns somehow. This one gives me some blank space around the images from Augustus to Domitian but maybe that's only on my end since it's based on percentages and not absolute pixel sizes. I don't get any line breaks in the dates in either version but as before that might also be only on my end due to the percentages. I've added a slightly modified variant of one of your versions (a slightly larger column for the names since I don't think it should be too squished, some of the later names + nicknames get a bit long) to the Julio-Claudians, does it look okay to you? Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
It looks very good now, thanks, that will do. I think, though, that we can afford to reduce even more the Name column in the case of the one-name emperors (Jovian, Valens, etc.), but that's just a recommendation of mine. Avilich (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Avilich: Good to hear. I've reduced the name column by one more percent and applied it throughout the draft. The squishing of the names of some of the Byzantine emperors was not as bad as I thought it would be (only five emperors get their nicknames partly or entirely pushed into a new row). Should be okay, it's an impossible balancing act to get a column size to fit both Otho and Andronikos I Komnenos "Misophaes" without either looking ugly. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Tintero21: Haha well damn. I appreciate the sources but I've actually already gone through all the Byzantine emperors with the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium as the main source, supplemented by Warren Treadgold's A History of the Byzantine State and Society and at times other sources. I think the ODB is easier to follow along with than the PLP or Kleinchroniken—is there a reason why these sources would be superior to the ODB (I would need to go through it all again and re-source everything 😬)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, the ODB is indeed the most concise and easier source to use in this case. I just thought it would be interesting to add some other sources along with it. I'm sometimes nitpicky in regard to chronology and stuff and I tend to look over multiple sources since they don't always match each other. Anyway, last time I checked the Byzantine emperors were still unsourced, but now I see they are mostly done, so that's nice. I'm not going to torture you into re-sourcering everything. Tintero21 (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Tintero21: Yeah, I understand; I'll keep slogging along then. If there down the line are any places in the draft that you feel the chronology diverges from any of the other sources or you feel could be bolstered by another source you're welcome to add stuff in if you want to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations! Glad it's finally done. The whole list is excellent overall and I can't think of any criticisms except for some nitpicks. I think my only real issue would be the look of a few entries like Constans II, Constantine IV or Justinian II, which look a bit odd as a result of the spacing, so I'm putting their Latin and Greek names next to each other to avoid unnecesary spaces. In my last edit I also put a couple of portraits from the Madrid Skylitzes, I hope that's okay. Tintero21 (talk) Tintero21 (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
That was very quick! As for the ref column, I still think it would be best not to have one at all: it takes up horizontal space, and the footnote can very well fit on the Life details column, besides (say) the age at death. It would be clear, regardless of the location of the footnote, that the sources cited refer to all the information presented about each entry. Avilich (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Avilich: Fair enough, I've removed the ref column. I don't think having it by the age at death works because not all emperors have a known or approximate age at death (I think the ref placement should at least be consistent), so I put the footnotes at the end of the life details column (where it is for quite a lot of emperors in the live list as well). If there aren't any other obvious issues or disagreements maybe it's time to move this out of my sandbox? Would you and Tintero21 perhaps be interested in being co-nominators for a featured list nomination :) ? Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I guess. I've never done something like that before and I'm quite lost, to be honest. About the sandbox, I think we should wait a couple of days just in case. I was thinking in sourcering the full names of the late Byzantines emperors since they are never used (altough I would personally just remove them). Also, are you sure Andronikos II and III had those nickmanes? I've never seen them before. Tintero21 (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@Tintero21: Neither have I :) Yeah, it's probably for the best to wait a few days. The reason I used the full names was that we include the full official names of the ancient emperors so I don't see why the same should not be done for the Byzantines. As far as I can tell there are just 12 emperors where the Greek names are not simply direct translations of the English ones - I can work on sourcing that as well.
As for the nicknames of Andronikos II and III they are not super common and I'm unsure if they are of Byzantine origin or if they were first used by later historians. They could probably be omitted. For reference here are some sources that use them: 1, 2 (also calls Constantine II "the Younger", Zeno "the Isaurian" and Justin I "the Elder"), 3 (can't read the relevant page in full but makes it appear that Andronikos III being "the Younger" is contemporary at least), 4 (again can't read the relevant page in full). Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@Tintero21: You're more than welcome to do the sourcing if you have the source at hand. I assume the PLP does not cover anything before the Palaiologoi? In that case I can add sourcing for Alexios III calling himself Alexios Komnenos rather than Angelos (maybe that should have a note as well) and all the Laskaris emperors using two last names. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@Avilich: I think so; unless there are any apparent issues everything is cited and no entries are incomplete. It seems to be uncommon but there can be more than 1 nominator, yes (Municipalities of Quintana Roo had 2 for instance). Neither of you have to be co-nominators if you don't want to of course, I just feel like I obviously can't really take sole credit here and sorting out any comments will be faster and more efficient if there are three people doing it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's say, hypothetically, that I accept being co-nominator. What should I do exactly? In the Quintana Roo review it seems like only one of the nominators is responding to the feedback anyway. By the way, that review lasted about 4 months... so I wonder how long will this take. Tintero21 (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@Tintero21: Yeah, you're right about the Quintana Roo review. I don't know if you have to do anything really but I guess you would be able to respond to feedback if you wanted to? The main thing was that I feel like I'm taking all the credit if I'm the only nominator and that I don't think you'll be able to partake in the review at all if you're not a co-nominator (since I believe you can't really support a nomination if you yourself are a significant contributor). It's up to you if those things are issues. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@Avilich: I intend to move the draft into mainspace later today or early tomorrow, just to be sure since you haven't answered I take it you do not wish to be co-nominator for a featured list nomination? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The only thing I would draw attention to is that I don't think all table column widths should necessarily be consistent throughout all tables. Avilich (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Avilich: No worries. I don't think there are any guidelines either way but I think it looks nice that they are consistent. It's also true that there is more blank space in some than in others. Are there any tables in particular where you feel this is a concern (since we've also established that they end up looking slightly different to me and you)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The Constantinian table, for example, has a blank space around Julian's picture because the Life details column is too small to contain all of the information, while the other columns have excess space. I personally like how the main article is formatted: coin pictures are 120px, busts are 100px, and there is no fixed size for each column. Of course, this will leave a small blank space around busts, but on the horizontal rather than vertical. Avilich (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Avilich: I think the Constantinian table in the main article has a too wide image column (to me it has blank space even around the coins), but we could try and get something that's in-between that and what is in the draft. If you want you could go through and adjust some of the column sizes and I can take a look and see if it looks fine to me as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Now the name section looks clustered, at least in my screen. I don't see any problem that couldn't be solved by just altering some text. For example, Julian's blank space could be fixed by simply shortening "Mortally wounded during campaign against Persia" to "Died during campaign in Persia". The information of which emperor ruled what could be put in Succession (like Maximian) instead of Life details, I think. Tintero21 (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Avilich:@Tintero21:, yeah I also think the name column got a bit too squished, at least for Constantine I and Julian. It is possible that it could be solved by shortening/moving text around but I tried another column size division where I put the width of the image column back to what it was (since you didn't change the size of any of the images), reduced the "reign" column a bit (since it had more blank space than the name column, at least to me) and added the excess to the name column. The succession and life details columns were kept the same. How does this look? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that we won't agree on this anytime soon, it's best if we leave this to after this thing is published, on the main article's talk page. I personally see no problem in cramming the name into a very small place (the squares are mostly blank space), in having tables with different proportions, and in assigning different sizes to the images. But if we keep doing this back-and-forth over minutiae we'll never finish this. Avilich (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Avilich: Yeah, alright. You're right that tweaking column sizes is a pretty small and easy thing to do. A featured list nomination is usually a long and drawn out process so it should be no issue if we work on the column and image sizes during it as these do not really impact the content of the list. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey, it's me again. I've noticed that you've been uploading some interesting coins from various emperor from a certain webside. How does copyright work on those sites? I've been searching coins for 6th century emperors (I find sad that we have Justinian beautiful mosaic next to all those ugly coins), but I'm a bit afraid of infringing any copyright policies. Take this or this site, could I use them? The first one says the coin is originated from the CNG. Tintero21 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Tintero21: There are two or three coins I've uploaded that may or may not be okay (looking into it) but anything from the CNG, no matter if it's from their own website or from any of these other websites is fine to upload (the CNG giving Wikipedia the permission can be read here - it says that the CNG gives "approval to use our coin images"). As long as you attribute the image to the CNG and include the template it is fine. You can upload the first coin but I'm not so sure about the second one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, although now it seems rather pointless to do any more research since you've already gone through most of the low-quality images (which is great). By the way, wow, that was so fast, I barely managed to find a couple of coins in that time, they weren't that good anyway. Tintero21 (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Tintero21: I did not mean to steal your thunder! I'm just very efficient at procrastinating. My process was google image searching for the emperor's name, followed by "cng" or "classical numismatic group", clicking on an image that looked good and verifying that it was actually from the CNG. There are still quite a few coins that I think could be substituted for better ones (some look worse than others and some are quite low in resolution) so if you want to have a look around for more you can. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alexander of Trebizond 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) 20:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Nabonidus
In your edit of 5:29, 9 May 2021 of Nabonidus, you introduced markup like ''{{Sfn|Weiershäuser|Novotny|2020|p=4}}''. As far as I can tell, the italic markup doesn't affect the display locally, but when the article gets transcluded into Portal:Monarchy, references, but not italics, are stripped out, so the markup turns into '''', which in turn is parsed as <b>', which leaves an unclosed bold tag. I removed all these italic wrappings. If there is a reason for using the italic markup wrapping {{Sfn}}, I'd like to know. If there isn't, please remove it from any other articles you marked up this way. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Anomalocaris: Thanks for removing it. There is no reason for the markup and I don't know how or why it happens. I'll take a look through some of my past work at some point this week. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anna Anachoutlou 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 Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The article Alexios V of Trebizond you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alexios V of Trebizond for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Assyrian kings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mari.
I was just trying to add that Egypt was conquered in 641, so I wonder if there is a way that we can make it so that it wouldn't repeat it but still say 641? Jishiboka1 (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jishiboka1: Maybe instead of adding a new sentence the dates of all the conquests could be added to "Within a short period of time, the Arabs conquered Mesopotamia, Armenia and Egypt"? I.e. replacing it with something like "The Arabs conquered Mesopotamia in 636, Armenia in 638–645 and Egypt in 641". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Goodnight. I would like you to ask me a question. When searching on Google I find information that Nabopolassar's wife was called Shuadamqa. When reading the article Nabopolassar the information of the wife of this king does not appear. Did Shuadamqa really exist or is it just Internet misinformation? I ask you this because you worked a lot on the Nabopolassar article and obviously you did a lot of research on this historical figure. Mawer10 (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mawer10: Goodnight. I'm aware of this name but it seems to me to only appear on online genealogy websites (which contain a lot of other invented information) so I would caution against accepting it as true. None of the scholarly sources I've read identified the name of Nabopolassar's wife. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
Season's Greetings
Hi Ichthyovenator! Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and a beautiful and productive New Year!
The article Alexander of Trebizond you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alexander of Trebizond for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello there, and happy holydays! Sorry to bug you again with Byzantine topics (I see you are quite busy with your Mesopotamian and Assyrian projects), but I was wondering if you could maybe take a look at my sandbox, where I worked on a rewrite of Eudokia Makrembolitissa. My goal was to make it something like Theodora (empress), although there is not that much information for Eudokia. English is not my main language and I don't know if my writing is always good, and this is my first time doing something like this :/ Tintero21 (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey Ichthyovenator, I hope all is well since we last spoke. I was inspired by the efforts at the List of Roman emperors and I have (now joined by Tintero21) begun working on a similar list for Chinese rulers (see User:Aza24/List of Chinese monarchs) which will hopefully replace the rather awful List of Chinese monarchs. When it comes to images, the first series of contemporary portraits appears in the Song; however, there are at least two rather well known depictions of two Tang emperors and two of the three Sui emperors (see User talk:Aza24/List of Chinese monarchs#Portraits of Sui and Tang emperors?) for the full conundrum. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? Feel free to comment here, or on the sandbox talk page. Any thoughts on the state of the list thus far would also be appreciated. Best – Aza24 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: Hello! I hope all is well with you as well. That's quite a mammoth task. What you've got so far indeed looks like it is going to be a massive improvement over what is currently at List of Chinese monarchs. I'm not very knowledgeable on the Chinese emperors, but in terms of layout I can comment that the handling of the names seems a bit inconsistent - in some sections the common name is in two columns but the posthumous name is in one, and in other sections the situation is reversed. Going by the talk page I assume this will be more consistent in the final version though?
In my opinion including non-contemporary portraits is not much of an issue, in the List of Roman emperors many of the Byzantine portraits are non-contemporary. For instance, many emperors from the 11th (but mostly 12th) century onwards use portraits from Mutinensis gr. 122, which is from the 15th century. It works there because scholars use those portraits too and they are generally regarded as fairly reliable. If the situation is similar for the Tang and Sui emperors (portraits made by the same culture, also used for these figures by at least some scholars) there should be no problem. I don't think you should follow the List of French monarchs approach though (that list as it stands now uses 19th-century paintings for 9th-century kings). If reliable portraits are only available for some rulers in a dynasty I don't think its a problem to include portraits of just those rulers and leave the others without them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, the annoyingly massive diversity and quantity of names is a feature of the Chinese monarchy that is rather unique from other nations! I think we have a plan for that, though, as you observed. Thanks for your thoughts on the portrait matter, I am still looking into it further but I think I'm leaning towards your suggestions of including based on the circumstances. I may return in the future to seek your advice on other things related to the list, would that be okay? Best – Aza24 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hama (queen) 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 Alanna the Brave -- Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I know I should have asked this way back then but... why did you remove the blue rows in the List of Roman emperors? The ones for those two, you know. I never asked before because I didn't give it much thought, but I've been thinking recently about it. Their ODB entries do refer to them as empress regnants (without directly using the term), but they are still absent in the list of "Emperors of Byzantium" (p. 360). I just think some people may find their inclusion weird since they are usually just labeled as regents and almost never included in lists. Tintero21 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tintero21: To be completely honest it was mostly an act of laziness. Since we per the FLC review had to add an accompanying symbol for the cases where the legitimacy of rulers was ambiguous (and could not use color alone) I didn't want to try and find another symbol which we could use for these two cases. We also cannot put them as being of disputed legitimacy (grey and with the same symbol as the rest) because no one disputes them as being legitimate heads of the Byzantine government. I think the notes work well enough on their own but if we want the blue rows we also need a decent symbol that's different from the # used for disputed emperors. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tintero21: yes, sure. I've implemented the change. Not sure "Varying ascribed status" is the best possible text for the legend but I couldn't come up with anything better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Hama (queen) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hama (queen) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Alanna the Brave -- Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Roman emperors' list 2: Reloaded
Hello there... Yeah, it's me again. Uhh I'll better go straight to the point: the List of Byzantine emperors. What do you think of its current status? I know you've participated in various discussions about merging, which is someting that I would personally like to do. One of the conclusions I saw was "At the moment, we have two good lists", which is no longer accurate since one of them is clearly (and by far) much better. At the time I used to think that the List of Roman emperors worked fine as a "general list" since it included almost every single emperor imaginable. The way in which co-emperors were portraited, I think, was an acceptable argument to mantain both list separate since it looked clearly distinct, but now things have changed.
I'm pretty sure another proposal (of any kind, really) will lead to another status quo due to lack of consensus. Well, as someone someday said 1½ years ago: "List of Byzantine emperors contains different information. It has the names in Greek. It could contain more Christianity-related stuff than could the longer general list of Roman emperors - who convened what councils, adhered to what heresies....Please just let's improve both lists rather than arguing for destruction of one or the dismemberment of both." I've started a sandbox testing some changes to the list, but it was easier said than done. For now my goal is just to source everything, but then I noticed that I would end up using the exact same references of the general list, meaning the only noticeable difference will be the addition of that "Notes" section. Do you have any ideas or opinions on the matter? Tintero21 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tintero21: We have the same personal opinion; there is IMO no real need for a separate list of Byzantine emperors, especially when we have a single List of Roman and Byzantine empresses, but as you say I don't think it is likely that there will ever be a consensus either way. Per the quote you provided, I do think that it's possible to make a list of Byzantine emperors that is sufficiently different to stand on its own feet.
At the moment there are some discrepancies about inclusions in both lists (the Byz list omits Procopius, Theodora (II), Eudokia and Michael IX); this should probably be rectified for consistency. It is possible to make the Byzantine list more intricate and detailed on account of covering a smaller subset of rulers. I personally don't like the notes column but in addition to (or instead of) it we could definitely give more weight to church stuff (which patriarch crowned the emperor, did they convene any councils etc). Because regents and co-emperors were more common/prominent in Byzantine times those could also be given greater weight in the list (maybe not with full, or at least indistiguishable, entries but indicated somehow) - Treadgold includes them in his list of rulers in A History of the Byzantine State and Society (1997). It is also not enormously uncommon for published lists, like that of Treadgold, to include the Latin and Trapezuntine emperors (omitting them from the main List of Roman emperors makes sense but they could perhaps appear here). John Haldon's The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine History (2005) also includes the rulers of Epirus, Thessalonica, Thessaly and Morea (though most of those did not claim to be emperors).
One cool idea that was once suggested at the main List of Roman emperors was to include maps for each ruler. It's probably not feasible since we'd need to create an enormous amount of maps and finding enough reliable sources to support them would be a nightmare but that would arguably be more useful here specifically due to the quite frequent dynamic changes in territory. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The "Notes" column is a really big issue. Since 2009 there has been people that oppose its inclusion, and it's not hard to see why. Ironically enough, this is the only thing that really separates both lists. Having all the information in plain text is quite boring to me, to be honest. To make any significant change means that that column needs to go. I think a "Coronation" column (or section) could be useful here, and maybe the church stuff could be in some kind of "Achievments" or "Important acts" (not the best phrasing) column, but wrote more like a list and not like paragraphs.
I also was thinking of including other post-1204 Byzantine claimants (Trebizond & Thessalonica), but I'm not quite sure if adding the Latin Emperors would be a good idea. Technically there was no "Byzantine" Empire during this period, altough I have seen them in some rulers list. About the Map idea, having one map for every emperor would certainly be a nightmare. I think it would be better to add a map at the start of every dynasty. Tintero21 (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tintero21: Yes, having important acts and achievements in list form would be an improvement I think (ironically similar to what is done at the List of Ottoman sultans). I also agree that a coronation column could be good - it could include date, crowning patriarch (or in some cases bishop) and maybe location (though in nearly every case that would be Constantinople). I think there is merit in including Trebizond and especially Thessalonica (they almost got Constantinople back decades earlier). The Latin emperors are not needed, no, but they do fit the common legitimacy criteria of ruling Constantinople and claiming to be Roman emperors - might be best to omit them though. Having maps at the start of every dynasty could work.
I was just thinking of the Ottoman list, yeah (oh the irony). The later pretenders could have a section of their own like you said. Anyway, I'll be testing some of this stuff later in the week, any comment is welcomed. Tintero21 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shalmaneser IV 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Shalmaneser IV you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shalmaneser IV for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ashur-nirari V 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 Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ashur-dan III 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Ashur-dan III you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ashur-dan III for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Naqi'a 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Naqi'a you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Naqi'a for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Naqi'a you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Naqi'a for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Anna Anachoutlou you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anna Anachoutlou for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shammuramat 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Ashur-nirari V you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ashur-nirari V for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Post-Imperial Assyria 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
You added a couple of short citations to that article (Da Riva 2013), but didn't provide the full citations. Could you add them please? Unless you meant Da Riva 2017?
@Headbomb: Fixed it; I added the Da Riva cite from my previous work at Nabopolassar which cites two different sources by Da Riva and I accidentally managed to copy the wrong one. I'll look at installing the script, thanks for the tip! Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Post-Imperial Assyria you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Post-Imperial Assyria for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar
I thank you for contributing to the "List of Roman Emperors" page. I am thankful you looked through my contributions and removed the incorrect ones. I'll try and improve my expertise for next time. Polyhedron "the Wise" (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Polyhedron "the Wise": Thank you! Hopefully my reversions did not discourage you from further editing - a lot of Roman/Byzantine portraiture that is commonly used in other places is non-contemporary or misattributed. We're also keeping a bit extra watch on the Roman emperors list at the moment because it's undergoing a featured list review. Good luck with your future work! :)
The article Shammuramat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shammuramat for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
List of kings of Babylon
Hi! I'd like to thank you for your impressive work on the List of kings of Babylon. I allowed myself to (partially) translate it in Italian (it:Lista reale babilonese). Honestly, I am not so much in favour of translations from en.wikipedia (which is a major sport on the it.wikipedia): I prefer to do the research myself. That's why my work involved a complete check of all the sources used. Whenever I couldn't read myself the source I left the information aside. At some point I looked at revision histories of Near East articles and I found your nick over and over. :-) Now I know that all your featured articles are a very good way to find my bearings about what to write on it.wiki. Again, thank you very much. --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 17:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pequod76: Hi! Thank you for the praise and great work on the Italian-language version! Doing the research yourself is definitely the best approach, it's important to verify that the sources used by other editors actually say what they're claimed to if you're going to use them yourself :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tiglath-Pileser III 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent edits to Assyrian Continuity
Your edit summary about how the previous article "cited various unreliable sources, contained WP:OR as well as deliberately misquoted and misrepresented material" describes something that I've seen in many Assyrian-related articles. It's frustrating for me because I know a lot of times this sort of thing is intentionally done to delegitimize Assyrians.
However, I'm so uplifted and grateful that someone like you with the skills and know-how put in all this time to make such WP:BOLD changes. Thank you so much. You Da Real MVP.
@2600:1010:B00C:92EF:C86A:DC15:9A78:3B30: Hello! Thank you for the compliments. I have also noticed this issue, yes. It's unfortunate because original research, misquotes and misrepresentation at an article like Assyrian continuity gives the impression that there is little actual support for it when the situation is quite the opposite. I've responded to your note on the talk page. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The article Tiglath-Pileser III you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tiglath-Pileser III for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Letter from Iddin-Sin to Zinu 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The article Letter from Iddin-Sin to Zinu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Letter from Iddin-Sin to Zinu for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, Ichthyovenator! The list you nominated, List of Roman emperors, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Walking with Beasts logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Walking with Beasts logo.png. 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).
Orphaned non-free image File:Walking with Cavemen logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Walking with Cavemen logo.png. 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).
