I absolutely despise talkpage templates. Please don't use them here. If you do use one, by all the gods, sign it so it archives and put it in its own section!
I prefer to keep both sides of my discussions together. If you leave me a message here, I will reply here. But if I left a note on your talk page, feel free to reply there or here, as I'm watching your page for a bit.
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.
Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)
I have nominated Middle Ages for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240624033600","author":"Borsoka","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Borsoka-20240624033600-FAR","replies":[]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-MediaWiki_message_delivery-20240629213000","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-WikiCup_2024_July_newsletter-20240629213000","replies":["c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-20240629213000-WikiCup_2024_July_newsletter"],"text":"WikiCup 2024 July newsletter","linkableTitle":"WikiCup 2024 July newsletter"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-MediaWiki_message_delivery-20240629213000","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-WikiCup_2024_July_newsletter-20240629213000","replies":["c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-20240629213000-WikiCup_2024_July_newsletter"],"text":"WikiCup 2024 July newsletter","linkableTitle":"WikiCup 2024 July newsletter"}-->
The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.
The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.
The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Dmitry_Azikov-20240630143600","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Ancestry_of_monarchs-20240630143600","replies":["c-Dmitry_Azikov-20240630143600-Ancestry_of_monarchs"],"text":"Ancestry of monarchs","linkableTitle":"Ancestry of monarchs"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Dmitry_Azikov-20240630143600","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Ancestry_of_monarchs-20240630143600","replies":["c-Dmitry_Azikov-20240630143600-Ancestry_of_monarchs"],"text":"Ancestry of monarchs","linkableTitle":"Ancestry of monarchs"}-->
Hello Victoria, I'm also very interstered in study of genealogy of medieval european royalty and want to ask about ancestry of monarchs isn't this obviously to add ancestors even without direct sources referencies because I don't always know there I can take them except web sources like Britannica, encyclopedia fmg.ac and geni.com and it can be very easily bring out from other articles parents of monarchs which are good sourced? And in other wiki like French, Spanish and Russian there are no such strict rules about sources referencies in royal ancestry and in them there no limit usually only in 4 generations. Dmitry Azikov (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240630143600","author":"Dmitry Azikov","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dmitry_Azikov-20240630143600-Ancestry_of_monarchs","replies":["c-Ealdgyth-20240630165400-Dmitry_Azikov-20240630143600"]}}-->
What other wikipedia's do is not relevant to what the rules are here on English wikipedia. In general, we are not a genealogical source - we should not aim to present genealogical information. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY. And unsourced information is also not acceptable - please do not introduce unsourced information. And you shouldn't combine unrelated sources to produce family trees - if the sources for a subject's life do not give a four or five generation ancestral tree, then per WP:UNDUE and WP:OR, we should not combine unrelated sources to produce information that sources about a subject do not consider important about that subject. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240630165400","author":"Ealdgyth","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ealdgyth-20240630165400-Dmitry_Azikov-20240630143600","replies":["c-Kansas_Bear-20240630204800-Ealdgyth-20240630165400"]}}-->
Dmitry Azikov has started using FMG(Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) for sourcing their editing. That site isn't considered a reliable source, per this discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240630204800","author":"Kansas Bear","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Kansas_Bear-20240630204800-Ealdgyth-20240630165400","replies":["c-Ealdgyth-20240630215100-Kansas_Bear-20240630204800"]}}-->
Also Frederick Lewis Weis's Ancestral Roots - and some others, but its impossible to tell which editions of those sources he's using. And frankly, the ancestry tables are pretty much cruft anyways - no serious academic biography would put in a full ahnentafel because so much of it is not germane to the subject - someone is very unlikely to have much influence or interactions with their great-great-grandmother, if they even have a clue who most of their remote ancestors are. He's spreading them all over and it's hard to keep up with the additions. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240630215100","author":"Ealdgyth","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ealdgyth-20240630215100-Kansas_Bear-20240630204800","replies":[]}}-->
