Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

History of Carthage merge

For anyone interested, there is a discussion regarding merging History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture into History of Carthage being held at Talk:History of Carthage#Merge. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Troubles: a colonial conflict?

Something of an impasse in this discussion Template talk:British colonial campaigns between me and Cliftonian about whether or not the Troubles should be listed on a template of British colonial campaigns. A few more opinions on the matter would be most welcome! Gerrynobody (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Article on birth of Jesus created based on other Wikipedia articles

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

History of South America

I've been working on the History of South America article. Any help copy editing/translating will be much appreciated. -- Marek.69 ^talk 09:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC

Hello there! There's an ongoing RfC concerning Paul Singer and WP:NPOV in a broader sense, that you might care to comment on. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Use of flag icons on genocide-related articles

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Use of flag icons on genocide-related articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Late Hittite states

Hi Please join the discussion on whether or not moving the title of Syro-Hittite states to Late Hittite states. Thanks Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped

Please comment at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide#RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Notifications, like the section title of an RfC and the explanation also need to be worded neutrally. Otherwise it's a clear cut case of [[WP:CANVASS]. Please reword your section title and notification accordingly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Marek, are you talking about THIS RfC? It seems neutral to me, and I have an idea what the discussion is about. I have no idea which of you have which position. The last Pluton (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

About some proposals on WT:VA/E

I've proposed to add history of Pakistan, history of Bangladesh and history of Syria. However, they have been gained no votes for more than two months, and they may be closed in the near future. I don't want them to be closed tagging NO CONSENSUS, so members of this WikiProject please participate in the voting of them. Thanks!--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Input needed regarding proposed split of archive and fate of some related categories

Please see Talk:Archive#Split_this_article_into_two:_one_about_the_institution.2C_the_other_about_document_collections and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_1#Category:Historic_document_collections. The Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_1#Category:Historical_documents may also be of interest to the members of this project. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A Project Idea

s:Index:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 9.djvu finishes up around 1872.

Are there any historians here that would be willing to formulate a synopsis for what collaboratively written Volumes, X, XI and XII covering the period up-to the so called End of History in the Mid 1930's could contain? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 22:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Michael Antoine Garoutte

Can some folks look at this and tell me if these sources are adequate and if any more can be found? I can't find any more on the internet really, there are plenty more however, being in newspapers and other books that are not available online from what I can see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Antoine_Garoutte — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C048:B2D0:71A7:B117:15E6:41CB (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I read Draft:Michael Antoine Garoutte and subsequently declined it. You have several major problems in the draft and prior reviewers have commented about them so I don't understand why you didn't take their advice.

First, almost none of your sources meet our requirements for both independence and reliability. Specifically, you cite books like The French and American history of Michael Garoutte and his descendants and The American Catholic Historical Researches both of which are self-published and therefore not useful. You also use sources like Treasure Trove in Gaspé and the Baie Des Chaleurs to source other facts in the text but which say nothing about the subject. To make matters worse you use a lot of archival sources like Admiralty Foundation Register, N IX B26, Folio 1265 at Marseille, France Prefectural Office at 8 Sebastian Street which cannot be used. Per WP:PRIMARY we might consider primary sources like journalism than speak about the subject contemporaneously although secondary sources (written by academics) are preferred. I think you misunderstand the difference between primary and secondary sources. What you've done is original research which isn't allowed. Wikipedians are dilettantes (by definition) and we can't easily verify what you claim to have on hand or found in an archive.

Secondly, this is written like a genealogical vanity project and I assume you're related to the subject. This is a conflict of interest. Flowery nonsense like "He is a Notable Revolutionary War Veteran and American Patriot Ancestor because of his Military Service and he is a Notable Ancestor in Genealogy because of his Noble French Lineage and because all Garoutte's in America descend from this one man." is destructive to your cause.

Finally, you've made no actual claim of notability. Forget anything you think you know about notability. Read about general notability as well as our general qualifications for any biography as well as our specific guidance for military veterans. Your subject meets none of these.

Most of this guidance was given to you a week ago so perhaps you're a little too eager. Rushing this process will only make it take longer. My advice to you is to remove all inappropriate references and all the text that relies on it. Also remove all text that doesn't have a citation. Examine what you have left (if anything) and ask if this person can pass any of the notability criteria. It's important you approach this as dispassionately as possible because being biased is only going to inhibit your ability to fix the problem. You might consider looking for help at the reward board. For free, you can get a Wikipedian who knows what they're doing clean this draft up. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

There's a big difference between real notability and "wikipedia notability". Editors on wikipedia do not follow the rules that are set by wikipedia policy for "wikipedia notability" over half the time. Any real professor of a university will tell you that wikipedia is not a reliable source anyway. Go take a good look at almost any wikipedia article, they are incorrectly cited, incorrectly sourced, the sources used are unreliable and have incorrect facts in them and or are biased and or are outright false and do not meet the wikipedia definition of "notability". Wikipedia is obviously a joke and it is NOT a real encyclopedia, sorry to break it to you but it never will be. Wikipedia is a huge % fraud just like the rest of the crap on the internet.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C048:B2D0:EDEE:BC87:97D:DCF8 (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Indian culture in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan

Dear person of interest of this topic, Can anyone find reliable sources about the Indian civilation in Merv, Turkmenistan at Kyz Qala and Uzbekistan, Samarkand who have buddist, hindu statues, can you find it? I find it important for the West Indian civilisation, the utter west north Indian civilisation must be sourced by someone and created by very intelligent Indian or foreigner wikipedia user what excisted there. It would like be a dream come true for all north Indians if the Indian hindu buddistic statues that are there would be contributed to the Indian civilisation and ancient Indian north west empire dynasties. Can someone had Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan history wikipedia ancient past to an Indian civilisation also on the wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.86.118 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment German invasion of Belgium: Eastern Front?

There is currently a discussion on the talk page of this article which may be of interest to members of this project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

GAR input sought: Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz

Hi, it has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The reassessment raises the questions of sourcing; neutrality; and level of detail present in the article. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz and falls within the scope of the project.

I hope editors of this project would be interested in reviewing the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. Thank you and happy editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did make that suggestion and I commend K.e.coffman for coming here. I would make the same request re Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/William L. Uanna/1. While improved since the GAR of that article commenced, there are still questions as to reliable sourcing and unencyclopedic detail. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

To add to Coretheapple's comment: no specialist knowledge of the subject is required for the article review. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment at McCarthyism

Discussion commenced there.[1] Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification of RFC for Korean MOS in regard to romanization

Should we use McCune-Reischauer or Revised for topics relating to pre-1945 Korea? Those inclined, please contribute here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move proposal, Martin Luther King, Jr.

Please comment on a requested move to change numerous article titles which contain Dr. King's name. Randy Kryn 11:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Roman And Byzantine Military History

Hello, I am currently working on a small (I am the only active member as of now) task force within the military history WP, I would like to invite anyone interested in either Roman or Byzantine Military History, to work on the project with me. Here is the Link Incase you are interested, thank you. Iazyges (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Squeegee, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Request for comment on Italian Wars

See Talk:Italian_Wars#Maps. Nobody answered the call from more specific projects (Italy, HRE).--Nickanc (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

List of state leaders by year

I have been working on and off on the list of state leaders by year articles. The one I have worked on the most is probably List of state leaders in 1759. However even it is no where near complete. I begin to do this in 2010 and thought that the lists were moving away from being so Euro-centric. However I seem to be about the only person who has made any actual expansion of the lists in those six years. List of state leaders in 1723 lacks a listing of even the Mughal Emperor, but lists 137 sub-units of the Holy Roman Empire. List of state leaders in 1734 only lists China, Japan, Korea, the Ryukyu Kingdom and Hyderabad State for Asia, and I only added Hyderabad State today. I can't make these lists good on my own, I need help in building them, so can people please help building them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that History of the constellations, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Proposed move of Template:Infobox ancient site

A proposal has been made that Template:Infobox ancient site be moved to Template:Infobox archaeological site. Please see the discussion on the template's talk page. • Astynax ^talk 17:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Archaeological record, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

REGARDING THE POLISH SECTION

The list of historians on Poland is very short (although there are masses of them) yet faulted. It contrary-to-facts suggests Norman Davies is a historian on exclusively contemporary Polish history; in reality, he writes also on old Polish history (e.g. "God's Playground. A History of Poland"). It also alleges Pawel Jasienica is an "amateur historian." What is meant by "amateur" here? Unreliable? Also, of all the names of historians on various countries, only by these two's names bios are provided. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.175.234 (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments in the article “Diesel engine”

Hello. I have opened a request for comments in the article Diesel engine regarding the contribution of George Brayton to the development of this type of engines. I am posting this to invite editors who are knowledgeable on the history of internal combustion engines to contribute to the discussion. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC).

Merger notice - Al-Baqi cemetery

I have tagged Demolition of al-Baqi, which is in the interest of this WikiProject, for merger into Al-Baqi'. The discussion takes place at Talk:Al-Baqi'#Merger of Demolition. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

GAR: Joachim Helbig

Input for the above community reassessment would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Dispute over redirect for Irish slave trade

Some additional opinions and input would be appreciated in this discussion. Basically, the original page focused on the subject of "Irish slavery" in the Americas (which most historians consider a misnomer at best). The page was deleted and made a redirect to Indentured Servitude after this AFD, but has since been recreated, with the new article focusing on the history of slavery in Ireland. There appears to be a consensus that the new page should be moved to Slavery in Ireland, but no agreement on what the soon-to-be-vacant "Irish slave trade" article should redirect to. Would much appreciate it if a few more people could weigh in on what's appropriate - thanks in advance! Fyddlestix (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

How many articles on progress do we need?

See merge suggestion at Talk:Social_progress. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Template for Deletion: Knight's Cross recipients in the Bundeswehr

FYI, Template:Knight's Cross recipients in the Bundeswehr and Bundesgrenzschutz has been nominated for deletion. The related discussion is here: Entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red

WikiProject Women in Red wants your biographies

I have taken the liberty of adding a link from this project's collaboration section (diff), to a redlist of *women historians for whom we have no biography article. Right now, there are five times as many biographies of men as there are of women on wikipedia. I hope this project will lend its support to addressing this imbalance by creating biographies for women within your project's scope. More generally, WikiProject Women in Red has very many redlists covering perhaps 100,000 notable women for whom we have no biography. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox military conflict - "result" or "outcome" parameter?

FYI

 – Pointer to discussion elsewhere.

Please see the not-quite-RfC at Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 3#Change "result" parameter to "outcome", on a proposition intended to help avoid misinterpretation of a "just the facts" infobox parameter as being a place for extensive, freeform, subjective cause–effect assertions that may be better handled in well-cited, contextual article prose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

infobox former country: "Today part of" for empires spanning lots of modern countries

There is a discussion at Template talk:infobox former country of the general appropriateness of this parameter for empires. Please comment there. Kanguole 18:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Input sought for a GAR

Hi, posting re Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1.

The discussion has been extensive, but with few !votes. The dialog has most recently centered on what sources should or should not be acceptable. It can be found in section "1.6 Wrapping Up", or a via a direct link to Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1#Wrapping_up.

Interested editors are invited to share an opinion, or to cast an !vote. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Sexual treatment for female hysteria

Hi, all. Input is needed at Talk:Female hysteria#It turns out that one of the central premises of this article is probably false. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject History/Archive 5 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Polygyny

Please provide comment at Talk:Polygyny#Map of polygyny w.r.t. Russia. (This project is being pinged because the topic-in-question is listed as a topic under this WikiProject's umbrella.) --Izno (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about history is updated - Skysmith (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that African nationalism, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Redirects to "Politics of the Republic of China"

I started discussion on the following redirects targeting Politics of the Republic of China: politics of Taiwan, Politics of taiwan, and Politics in Taiwan. I invite you to the RFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion: Category:Persecution by atheists

There is currently a discussion at WP:CFD that may be related to the topic of this wiki project. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Communist era

The redirect, Communist era, is currently under discussion, recently relisted. I invite you to the RFD talk. --George Ho (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing RM at Talk:Civil Service of the People's Republic of China

There is an ongoing RM at Talk:Civil Service of the People's Republic of China. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Naming convention for history articles?

Is there a naming convention for history articles somewhere? I realize that there are naming conventions for specific aspects of history, such as sovereign names and military history, but I'm wondering if there is a general one like the one for geography here Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). I'm asking because there is a dispute about using foreign names for an empire at Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate, where someone argued that only one foreign name should be used per WP:LEDE#Foreign language and WP:LEDE#Clutter (although the article for the naming convention for geography does not appear to agree with this suggestion). This is not a request for comment (although you can join in if you are interested), but I'm wondering if there is a MOS for names in history articles, and if not, perhaps there should be one just to avoid unnecessary disputes? Hzh (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Hzh. There are also WP:naming conventions (events), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates). For Roman figures, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans). There might be some others at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, but I cannot tell which ones. --George Ho (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer review of article

Hi, I want to promote Farrukhsiyar to GA. Please participate in the peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Farrukhsiyar/archive1. Thanks RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:UK miners' strike (1984–85)

Please comment on the requested move at Talk:UK miners' strike (1984–85)#Requested move 26 March 2017.--Nevé–selbert 13:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming "420 collaboration", which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017! The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion. For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Democrat Party

Opinions are requested at Talk:Democrat Party (epithet) as to whether a specific source (§ Lyman) is reliable for the claim that the phrase Democrat Party was used in a non-derogatory fashion by Democratic Party members in Maryland, U.S.A. during the early 20th century. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

History of India

Anybody interested to collaborate in editing History of India for GA? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Descendants of Adam and Eve for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Descendants of Adam and Eve is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Adam and Eve (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted RfD for civil service of China

The RfD for civil service of China was recently relisted. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill proposal at WP:Citation overkill talk page

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

How to describe the Emmett Till case in the lead sentence of the Emmett Till article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emmett Till#RfC: Should we include the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect in the lead or specifically the lead sentence?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Notability historical buildings, structures, places, esp. w.r.t. historical plaques

Are there any guidelines about notability with regard to historical buildings, structures, places and items that have local, city, state or federal historical designations or plaques? For example, would McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom qualify as notable based on the WP:RS found there, particularly and:

References

I have never heard of a picture of a plaque establishing notability on wikipedia, but it does seem like an independent secondary reliable and verifiable source for notability. What do you all think?

More eyes are welcome at the WP:AfD on the high rise (Burano (building)) in built on both the parking lot of the showroom and into the showroom itself, where only the facade of the showroom has been preserved (Facadism, [2]):

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Burano_(building)

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC) (revised --David Tornheim (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC) per comment immediately below.)

Rather than stating that the high rise is in the parking lot of the showroom, it is more accurate (and interesting) to say that the facade of the showroom was integrated into the skyscraper. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• WP:NGEOG says: "Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable. Places with protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable."

  After stating that maps and census tables only confirm existence, not notability, the guideline says: "On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability." In Toronto the process for formally designating a structure is convoluted, scholarly. Genuine, serious historical research backs up every designation. Every plaque is backed up by this copious research. These official plaques, like the one that triggered your concern, to use the wording of the guideline, "describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it." Geo Swan (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: Regarding this diff, I was not asking if that section of the article was notable. I asking if the showroom itself is notable. As I have said repeatedly, I don't think the skyrise is, but the showroom that destroyed all but its facade might be. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• You stated, on Talk:Burano (building), that you had properly complied with WP:BEFORE. Well, when you came across the Turnbull reference, and other references that explained how the showroom was a notable heritage structure, during your compliance with BEFORE, why, in the name of Heck, didn't you start a talk page discussion where you suggested changing the article to be primarily focussed on the showroom, not the condo?
• I suggest that, if we had two articles, one on the showroom, and one on the Condo, participants who thought a merge was in order, would want to merge the showroom article into the Condo article, and not vice versa.
• Anyhow, this is would be a discussion more appropriate for the talk page(s), because AFD is not supposed to be used to frog-march article improvements. Geo Swan (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember the article about the showroom coming up in my search. I did six google searches from:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I clicked on the first three entries of each. The article describing the show room does not come up. If it had I might have approached this differently. If you want to create the article McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom by copying the material from Burano_(building)#McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom, I promise not to send that to WP:AfD as long as the article focuses on the show room and WP:SECONDARY WP:RS rather than the unnotable skyrise. However, I reserve the right delete material that is based on WP:PRIMARY. I had considered creating the article myself, but I was waiting for feedback confirming that it seemed to have enough WP:RS to justify an article. I think it does, but I am not sure.

If you want to start a discussion at the talk page at some other place, have at it. I will likely grant you permission to copy relevant comments from me there. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anne Delong:, @Dex2177:, @Trekphiler:, @Typ932:, @Mrceleb2007:, @Infrogmation: You are the top editors of the article McLaughlin (automobile) that are still active on Wikipedia. I thought you might have an interest in this subject that is about the historic showroom, and the discussion about whether the showroom (or the building that demolished all but the showroom's facade) are notable. We really could use some new voices from experienced editors, especially about what constitutes WP:RS for WP:GNG. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Since you asked, here is my take on this subject: (1) A historic plaque, if placed by a historical or architectural society or government agency, should be acceptable as a reliable source; a lot of research and careful editing goes into these plaques, and casting in bronze is just as legitimate a way of publishing as printing on paper or a posting to a website. A plaque alone, though, may not be sufficient to declare a subject notable - it's just one "document", and notability requires several extensive documents. (2) If the showroom was notable apart from the plaque (for example, if there are news reports of its construction, discussions of its architecture while it was still standing, reports of events happening there, etc.), then it should have its own article. If the condo is only notable because it is on the location of the showroom, and is otherwise WP:42, then information about it can be part of the showroom article. (3) However, if reliable sources only discuss the showroom's facade at the time of its incorporation into the condo, as part of the architecture, then the facade info can be part of the condo article. (4) If both the showroom and the condo have been written about extensively in reliable sources, beyond information about the facade, then there should be two articles.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe THIS or THIS or THIS would be relevant?—Anne Delong (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm no expert on WP guidelines, but I'd say if a group has managed to persuade a community to allow a plaque (& that can't be a simple process), the building it's attached to probably merits notice by WP, regardless of other coverage. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anne Delong:, @Trekphiler: Thanks for the feedback. Based on that, I went ahead and created McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom which I am now more interested in than the Burano_(building). I would like to know if you feel that the WP:RS, such as city documents (e.g. Planning Dept. Staff reports; Resolutions for City Council, etc.) are really appropriate. I had previously identified them as WP:PRIMARY, but I got some strong objections. I would like to know what you two think. If they are WP:RS, it provides more information for the article, but then there is the question of what part of the document are to be selected--certainly not *everything*. I have never been very clear on when it is okay to us WP:PRIMARY sources--my feeling is that it is almost never, unless the same fact or idea can be seen in a secondary source. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, making a lot of use of primary sources can move the focus of an article away from its purpose of summarizing what is written about the subject by independent authors. Just because something is true doesn't mean it should be included in the article. Every building in Toronto will have documents full of trivial detail at the planning department. I limit use of primary documents to improving accuracy of information already included. For example, if a book source about a building discusses its location by saying "across from the Smoozle building", a primary source with the street address might back that up. If a news article describes it as a "skyscraper", a primary document may say how many stories. However, if no journalists or other authors talk about other information, such as permit and inspection dates, names of subcontractors, etc., appearance in in the planning dept. documents is not a good reason to include these details.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's more or less what I thought too--using the primary sources mostly to confirm specific or very closely related facts that are mentioned more or less in the secondary WP:RS. Are there any architecture articles that you are familiar with where there was a dispute about use of primary sources that eventually resolved? I'm open to looking at other similar topics, but I know that use of WP:PRIMARY varies a lot with subject matter. For example, with MEDRS, certain editors have zero tolerance for any primary source, whereas in law, what we call primary sources (primary authority) (e.g. court cases and legislation) are often considered fair game for citations in Wikipedia just as they are in good legal writing. (It's tricky with law since choosing the appropriate primary authority that is binding for that jurisdiction is generally superior to choosing a secondary authority, since secondary sources are only persuasive. And of course, appellate courts in significant published cases (e.g. Miranda v. Arizona) can put an enormous amount of ink to write up a summary of the relevant law for their jurisdiction, so it often reads more like what wikipedia identifies as a secondary than a primary source.) --David Tornheim (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Archive 5/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject History.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject History, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

England in the Late Middle Ages

Would somebody mind having a look at this issue?--Erdic (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Historiography of the ancient world

Greetings, historians; does anyone know where to find the Wikipedia article about 'historiography of the ancient world', i.e. the story of how studies of "ancient history" has changed over time? My impression is that "ancient history" and "biblical studies" were confluent and focused on Egypt, Babylon, and Israel—until the 19th century, when, with new information from modern archaeology, the former evolved and expanded to include Sumer, India, and beyond. And from there to today's conception which includes more ideas about the early history of civilization and does more to include East Asia. I haven't yet seen a page overviewing this transformation in historiography but I suspect that people here might know of one. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Groupuscule: Good to see you here. Maybe try New historicism as a jumping off point? I have an entire section in my Literary criticism book that lists numerous authors and have a number of good essays. The book is.

References

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Tornheim, good to "see" you also :-) I'm not really sure what to do with the literary criticism angle; does this get much into changing perception of ancient Mesopotamia? Maybe Historiography of the ancient world needs its own article. (Not at all sure this would be the correct name.) But I'd rather find some other place where this material already exists. groupuscule (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you looking at this from a contemporary standpoint (historiography at the time), or from a modern POV? There's been a radical change in view of what historiography, of what history, is; even in the 18th Century, rumor & outright fiction weren't considered out of bounds. (So you'll see Herodotus talking about the fantastic as if it was real, & nobody at the time, or well into the modern era, would've imagined calling him on it.) Can I source that? No; I got this from an Ancient Greek History prof of mine... Still, if you look at period accounts, you'll frequently see things treated seriously & wonder, "WTF?", so...that's why. Hope that's some help, anyhow. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Another RM at Talk:List of political parties in the Republic of China

Hello. I invite you to comment at Talk:List of political parties in the Republic of China#Requested move 24 May 2017. --George Ho (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill RfC

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Primacy discussed at Talk:Joint Communiqué

Hello. I opened the discussion at Talk:Joint Communiqué about the current title and primacy role of Joint Communiqué, an agreement between South Vietnam and Buddhist sect. --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

History of Money

History of Money article has multiple issues, see the talkpage. Alæxis_¿question? 06:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Historical Naming

Hello,

There is an RfC on Talk:Iran that might be of interest to members of this WikiProject.

Thanks,

Genealogizer (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

GA reassessment: Bio / history article

An article that is of interest to this project has been nominated for community reassessment. The discussion can be found here:

• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hermann Graf/1.

Interested editors are invited to weigh in. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links in infoboxes

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Categories of ancient periods (up to 500 CE) by continent have been nominated for discussion

Category:273 disestablishments in Africa and many similar categories have been nominated for possible upmerging. 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) 06:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Jewish content at the Definitions of whiteness in the United States article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Definitions of whiteness in the United States#Jewish material. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

History of Marketing

This is just to advise that the article entitled History of marketing (currently rated start class, top importance) has recently been completely overhauled and rewritten. It is now much expanded, has a coherent structure and draws on the seminal literature in the field. Prior to making these changes, a suggested structure was posted on the talk page, but after more than 6 months, there were no comments or suggestions, so I simply went ahead and reworked the entire article in accordance with my previous suggestions. It was necessary to remove several copyvios, many factual errors and errors of interpretation as per previous advice - but apart from those removals, I tried as best as I could to work with the pre-existing content by improving the references or tweaking the conceptualisation so that aligned with current theory. I have also tried to ensure that the article is consistent with other key articles in the marketing area. I still think that there are some sections, a legacy from the original article, that do not add value to the article and could be deleted for the sake of brevity and clarity, but I am reluctant to delete any contribution from other editors (except when it is plainly incorrect, repetitive or a copyvio). BronHiggs (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Jean Alfonse article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Jean Alfonse#Recent edits. A permalink for it is here. The matter primarily concerns whether or not Jean Alfonse was Portugese and what the title of the article should be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles about historical subjects

Hi WikiProject History! Wiki Education is creating a guide to help students contribute content about history. It's a handout intended to supplement our other resources, such as the interactive training and basic editing brochures.

I'd love to get some community feedback on the draft here: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/History. In order to make our printing deadline, we'd appreciate feedback by the end of Sunday, September 3. Thanks! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

ISO 4 redirects help!

{{Infobox journal}} now features ISO 4 redirect detection to help with the creation and maintenance of these redirects, and will populate Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects. ISO 4 redirects help readers find journal articles based on their official ISO abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys. A → Journal of Physics A), and also help with compilations like WP:JCW and WP:JCW/TAR. The category is populated by the |abbreviation= parameter of {{Infobox journal}}. If you're interested in creating missing ISO 4 redirects:

• Load up an article from the category (or only check for e.g. History journals).
• One or more maintenance templates should be at the top of page, with links to create the relevant redirects and verify the abbreviations.
• VERIFY THAT THE ABBREVIATION IN |abbreviation= IS CORRECT FIRST

• There are links in the maintenance templates to facilitate this. See full detailed instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects.
• |abbreviation= should contain dotted, title cased versions of the abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys., not J Phys or J. phys.). Also verify that the dots are appropriate.
• If you cannot determine the correct abbreviation, or aren't sure, leave a message at WT:JOURNALS and someone will help you.

• Use the link in the maintenance template to create the redirects and automatically tag them with {{R from ISO 4}}.
• WP:NULL/WP:PURGE the original article to remove the maintenance templates.

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Founding of the German Empire

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Founding of the German Empire—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Was the removal of content about Arab/Levantine passengers from the Titanic justified?

Please see this talk page section Talk:Passengers_of_the_RMS_Titanic#Was_the_removal_of_info_on_Arab.2FLevantine_passengers_sourced_from_Al_Arabiya_justified.3F on whether the removal of content about Arab/Levantine passengers from the Titanic justified. In particular: is it necessary that information on the demographic makeup of the Levantine/Arab passengers come from a formal historian, or would an Al Arabiya news article be enough?

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration 100 - Featured Article Candidate

The Balfour Declaration article is currently a receiving a Featured Article Candidate review. The declaration is considered to be the birth certificate of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and its 100th anniversary is in less than two months' time. It is a level 4 vital article in History, and a Top-Importance article at both Wikiproject Israel and WikiProject Palestine. Any input would be appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the WP:TALK guideline discourage interleaving?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Graph of [Confederate] Monument Construction

A graph of confederate monument construction was added to the article List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. An RFC is in progress to determine whether the graph should remain. Participation of editors familiar with Civil War history and Jim Crow is encouraged. D.Creish (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is the graph in question. Please look at it and ask yourself, "What does it mean? And where is it coming from? And is this something that should appear on a very visited (over 1,400 hits a day) neutral POV article? Then consider offering an opinion because open warfare is about to break out. Carptrash (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Carptrash, how about we don't spread the dispute to other venues? The project has been notified. Let's not rehash the arguments here. (And yes it should appear and yes it is neutral. And informative.) Volunteer Marek  01:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I've taken Confederate monuments off my watch list. Carptrash (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Highland Clearances

I am trying to improve Highland Clearances but just recently find myself the target of 2 editors who seem to disagree with Wikipedia editing guidelines and wish to ignore the academic publications which I believe qualify under WP:SOURCE and WP:HSC. The article has a number of defects, which I am slowly trying to work my way through. (Notable are the usage of sources that may not match the requirements of WP:SOURCE and WP:HSC, and the section headed Second Phase of the Clearances, which tackles, inter alia, the Sutherland Clearances, which were clearances that were in the first phase.)

May I ask interested editors to take a look at the latest two discussions on the talk page and let me know whether or not they feel I am being reasonable. The penultimate one deals with reversion of "Economic Change" back to "Economic Improvement" and the last is an accusation that I have deleted text based on my personal opinions (which I resent, as I have gone to a lot of trouble to get access to, read and incorporate the ideas of the leading historians in this field into the article - the deletion was based on WP:DUE).

I acknowledge that I probably made an unwise choice in working on this article if I wanted a quiet life, since there is always going to be some editor who has read some blog on the Clearances and thinks he is an expert. However, I seem to be somewhat alone in trying to fix this article and really could do with some support from those who think history articles on Wikipedia should be of a high standard.

Any other advice would be welcome. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

American historians and diffusion

Category:American historians is marked for diffusion and until earlier today, several subcategories by topic (altho not all), such as Category:American art historians were marked as non-diffusing. Obviously, this is a contradiction. I started out by taking the non-diffusing categories and putting them in the parent category and received some feedback questioning it. I have since removed the parent category and the non-diffusing tags (adding them back would be trivial, of course). I suggested that an alternate scheme for diffusing the parent Category:American historians may be by state and made a couple of these categories as a start: Category:Historians from California and Category:Historians from Pennsylvania. I am offering two questions to this WikiProject:

1. Should subtopic categories of Category:American historians be marked as non-diffusing?
2. Should Category:American historians be diffused by state?

@Johnbod:, @Philafrenzy:, @Mduvekot: who posted to my talk. Please {{Ping}} me if you need me directly for this conversation. Note that I will happily edit the categories however the community decides but that at the moment, Category:American historians is diffused by topic as it was 24 hours ago and there are only the two categories by state which I am not populating until I get more feedback. I will continue diffusing Category:American historians by century, which is a pre-existing scheme. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I have reposted this, as is, to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States History‎; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia - not all very active, but t‎here we are. Justin, could you please stop editing in this area until their is consensus as to what to do? Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

And forgot to add links to here! Now done. Copying from the VA section:

I don't see why the category should need to be non-diffusing—if sources identify the individual solely as an art historian, that category is sufficient. If they do other types of history—types that are not represented by existing categories—they can also be added to the generic category as a catch all. But isn't the point to diffuse down to specific types of history whenever possible? The redundancy of adding "American historian" to every "American art historian" is a simple redundancy. Diffusion by state similarly appears to be overkill. The granularity of the Category:American people by occupation by state categories is a redundant intersection: the individual would still be categorized as an "American architect" and "Architect from Kansas"... In our case, it also creates all kinds of multiple category issues, especially as academics often transfer between institutions across state lines. Better to cat as "American art historian" and "People from Topeka". Also, in general, I'd try to confirm the "non-diffusing" status of large categories before making lots of edits on them. Saves everyone the time both in fixing edits and watchlist notifications. czar 19:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

And from the biography project:

I don't have a strong opinion on (1), but my answer to (2), the proposed by-state categorization, is a strong oppose. There is no significant difference in their approach to history that falls along state lines (except for the small fraction of historians whose interest is purely local, who should be categorized according to where their interests lie not where they are actually from), so the proposed subdivision would be a non-notable intersection and a non-defining categorization. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Categorization by state is inappropriate for reasons above. Would you have similar for other countries? US-centric suggestion. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC).

Agree that diffusion by state serves no purpose that I can see. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

We all seem agreed on this, and Justin (koavf) has stopped diffusing these - thanks all. Really the 4 by-state cats (with only a handful of pages) set up should be deleted. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

An offline app for History

Hello everyone,

The Kiwix people are working on an offline version of several Wikipedia subsets (based on this Foundation report). It basically would be like the Wikimed App (see here for the Android light version; iOS is in beta, DM me if interested), and the readership would likely be in the Global South (if Wikimed is any indication): people with little to no access to a decent internet connexion but who still would greatly benefit from our content.

What we do is take a snapshot at day D of all articles tagged by the project and package it into a compressed zim file that people can access anytime locally (ie once downloaded, no refresh needed). We also do a specific landing page that is more mobile-friendly, and that's when I need your quick input:

1. Would it be okay for you to have it as a subpage of the Wikiproject (e.g. WikiProject History/Offline)? Not that anyone should notice or care, but I'd rather notify & ask
2. Any breakdown of very top-level topics that you'd recommend? (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Open_Textbook_of_Medicine2 for what we're looking at in terms of simplicity) Usually people use the search function anyway, but a totally empty landing page isn't too useful either. Alternatively, if you guys use the Book: sorting, that can be helpful.

Thanks for your feedback! Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Stephane (Kiwix), this isn't the most active of projects, so I might be bold and say that you should do what feels best in terms of where the landing page should live. For a top-level breakdown, you could use some/all of the articles in the "history" section of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2 (bolded in the main/wider list). These are:

• History of the world
• History
• Civilization
• Prehistory
• Ancient history
• Post-classical history
• Modern history
• History of art
• History of science

You could alternatively break it down by regions of the world or by areas of study, though the latter might be a bit ... academic for your purposes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ed - you're right, I'll probably keep the academia part for when we know more about our users (it'll be available anyway, we simply won't make it front page) - Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Stephane (Kiwix): wot do you mean, direct message you? — fortunavelut luna 15:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: We need the email address linked to your itunes account to send you an invitation, so rather than post it on my talk page simply send me an email (or write to infokiwix.org)Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC

An RFC has been opened about categorization of events by past or current country, see the link here. Feel free to join the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red November contest open to all

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Heated discussion at Talk:Nazism

There is a contentious discussion going on at Talk:Nazism and some extra eyes would be appreciated. I am acting as an uninvolved admin here so I will not be joining the discussion. Thanks for any help... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_History

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 15:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

British war crimes

I have instigated a discussion about this highly biased and OR driven article at Talk:British_war_crimes#Article_problems. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

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.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Positions on Jerusalem

I added the WikiProject's template to the talk page of Positions on Jerusalem but it was removed. I think that it's on the scope of the project because it's full of historical events, specially the section "Background". Do you think that it should be re-added? Rupert Loup (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

There is a requested move at Talk:Shudao#Requested move 6 December 2017 in which an editor has proposed renaming Shudao to Road to Shu. Please come and add your !vote and rationale to the discussion. Thank you and Happy Holidays to All!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Fresh eyes needed at History of cannabis

I noticed that there was no overarching History article for the whole Category:Cannabis tree, so I created one by compiling bits of cited info from a dozen different articles, and looking up facts and citations to clarify and fill in some of the gaps. I've been staring at it too long to see it objectively, but I think it could definitely use some smoothing-out to make it look less cobbled-together. If anyone is interested, I'd love to hear your opinions on the Talk page (or feel free to fix anything you like) so that this page can be ironed-out. Thanks for any input, Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Inflation confused

Use of "inflation adjusted" figures (& the template) is under discusson here. Comment is invited. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Split proposal: List of Russian explorers

It has been proposed that the first portion of List of Russian explorers be split out into its own article "History of Russian Exploration". Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:List of Russian explorers#Split proposal. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Nazism/Intro/1

Hello. Could somebody have a look at my request on the relevant talk page? Feel free to comment there. Thank you in advance!--Siebi (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Date of birth of Catherine of Aragon

Hey there, I come from the German version where I usually edit and have not found a better fitting place to put my request: Does anyone of you know anything about the exact birth date of Catherine of Aragon? I have written about it on the talk page, as well. Best regards, --Andropov (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Polish collaboration with the German occupation forces in WWII

Hello everyone,

I'd like to draw your attention and ask for your comments on changes I've proposed for Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II#Poland. An account of my proposed changes and the reasons for them is given here (in two parts); the revisions from before I made any change [3], before I made the recent changes [4] and after I've finished everything [5] are also available. You can also read a summary of the issues in an ANI opened by one of the editors and subsequently dismissed [6]. Thanks for your attention. François Robere (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that History of religions, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Template:Infobox_folk_song

You are welcome to discuss the newly created {{Infobox folk song}} and its future here. --Tamtam90 (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Operation Hardtack

It is just a matter of disambiguation. The page Mushroom cloud links to Operation Hardtack, anyone has any idea of which of the two operations is referenced?--MaoGo (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Sponge (material), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Alikat101 Self-determination#Kashmir Edits

New-user Alikat101 introduced an uncited paragraph to the top of the Kashmir section of the Self-determination article, in the process introducing some typos into the document. I fixed the typos, but I suspect there may be some NPOV issues with the added paragraph. I left it in and tagged it as it seemed to have some awareness of the history, and I'm not qualified to judge. Could someone more knowledgeable please take a look? This is the text he added:

Ever since Pakistan and India’s inception in 1947 the legal state of Jammu and Kashmir, the land between India and Pakistan, has been contested as Britain was resigning from their rule over this land. Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler residing over Kashmir at the time accession, signed the Instrument of Accession Act on October 26th 1947 as his territory was being attacked by Pakistani tribesmen. The passing of this Act allowed Jammu and Kashmir to accede to India on legal terms. When this Act was taken to Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy of British India, he agreed to it and stated that a referendum needed to be held by the citizens in India, Pakistan, and Kashmir so that they could vote as to where Kashmir should accede to. This referendum that Mountbatten called for never took place and framed one of the legal disputes for Kashmir. In 1948 the Untied Nation intervened and ordered a plebiscite to be taken in order to hear the voices of the Kashmiris if they would like to accede to Pakistan or India. This plebiscite left out the right for Kashmiris to have the right of self determination and become an autonomous state. To this date the Kashmiris have been faced with numerous human rights violations committed by both India and Pakistan and have yet to gain complete autonomy which they have been seeking through self-determination.

GretLomborg (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Century and Decade - Articles or lists?

I would like to seek the view of this project members on whether you consider the Century and Decade related articles, e.g. 18th Century, 1990s etc as proper articles or lists? I recommended to add about 30 such articles as Level-4 Vital Articles under the Topic Adding History by Timeline here. But seems the prevailing view is that these are lists rather than articles and hence should not be considered vital. In my opinion listing these articles as vital articles would draw attention and enthusiam to this topics and help improve their content and importance wise they definitely qualify to be considered among the top 10,000 vital articles at Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Feel free to share your views here or in that page. Arman ^(Talk) 14:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Atlantic, Suwannee River and Gulf Railway

is at AfD. It needs attention form someone with access to archives hidden in some university somewhere.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Gjon Kastrioti move request

Trying to widen a discussion of the title of the Gjon Kastrioti article. The issue is under discussion here if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  17:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:WPH redirect target

Why does this redirect target this relative obscurity and not to Wikipedia:WikiProject History? Can I change the redirect target? PseudoSkull (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

HELP WANTED

For a number of years we have been experiencing a steady decline in the number of administrators as a result of attrition and a declining number of editors willing to consider adminship. Things have reached a point where we are starting to experience chronic backlogs in important areas of the project including noticeboards, requests for closure, SPI, CSD & etc. If you are an experienced editor with around two years (or more) of tenure, 10k edits give or take and no record of seriously disruptive behavior, please consider if you might be willing to help out the community by becoming an administrator. The community can only function as well as we all are willing to participate. If you are interested start by reading WP:MOP and WP:RFAADVICE. Then go to WP:ORCP and open a discussion. Over the next few days experienced editors will take a look at your record and let you know what they think your chances are of passing RfA (the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia) as well as provide you with feedback on areas that might be of concern and how to prepare yourself. Lastly you can find a list of experienced editors who may be willing to nominate you here. Thank you and happy editing... [Note:This page may not be on my watchlist so if you want to reply to me, please either ping me or drop me a line on my talk page.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Help in Guru Nanak controversy

Hi. There is an editor, Lepchav, who is removing information regarding Guru Nanak from the Gurudongmar Lake article that they consider false. Issue is they also are claiming that there is no trace of Guru Nanak in history, without presenting reliable sources that back up the claim, so I think there is a WP:NPOV situation going on with the removal. Could you guys please take a look at the situation as impartial editors? Thanks in advance. Thinker78 (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Took a look, added my take at the Gurudongmar Lake talk page, also reverted Lepchav's most recent edit.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 03:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"Chinese social structure" needs editing

Hi. The article Chinese social structure needs editing and assessing. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Modern history#Image use is excessive

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Modern history#Image use is excessive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Noah's Ark

Hi. Please comment on the talk page section of the article Noah's Ark titled "Existence of the ark" as to whether the given source verifies the text. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(Category) rename proposal

There is relisted discussion about renaming Category:Christianity of the Middle Ages. If you wish, please join this discussion. Based on the arguments in that discussion, we might also rename article History of Christianity during the Middle Ages. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Major task! Years need referencing

Hi, there is a major task that needs to be done. I noticed that some years need referencing. Probably the whole series of more than two thousand years need to be checked for sourcing. For a small sample, take a look at years 4 BC, 400 BC, and 400, which are virtually unsourced. Some editors need to step forward! Thinker78 (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Best target for Colonial era?

Where should we target these: Colonial era, Colonial Era, Colonial age, Colonial Age, Age of colonialism, etc., etc.?

• Some of these presently go to Early modern period, but it not suitable. It's extremely general, and the colonialism-related material is thin and scattered.
• Chronology of Western colonialism#15th to 18th centuries is weak, just a list, with many iffy entries.
• History of colonialism is too broad, topically, while its content is far too narrow (only covers Spain, Portugal, England/Great Britain, and France in any detail, and only in particular areas, and arranged by empire, not chronologically overall). It's a nice start to a general, massive topic, but needs a lot of work.
• Colonialism is far too broad and general.
• Age of Discovery is the best bet I see, but it's focused on European exploration not colonialism. It does weave in the latter but mostly as kind of an afterthought. It's also not clear if the timespan is right; it starts too early (or at least lacks a heading for the beginning of colonialism proper; and arguably ends either too late (after the overall thrust of most new European colonization attempts, before being restarted in a new idiom with the New Imperialism) or too early (before WWII ended New Imperialism, followed by the dissolution of the British Empire, the last of the original colonial empires, into the Commonwealth of Nations). It also just doesn't focus properly for the colonialism topic. The key date is 1402, the invasion of the Canary Islands, but this is buried, out of chronological sequence, in a subsection, where it's treated as a trivial aside, despite its tremendous importance (it was the beginning of European sugar-cane plantations in earnest, not counting abortive experiments in the Levant during the Crusades, and was one of the four main impetuses of the colonization of the Americas – sugar, silver/gold, route to Asia, Christianization – and the no. 1 driver of the African slave trade).

Writing a new article on the topic is beyond the time and focus I can commit in the foreseeable future. Maybe Age of Discovery can be rejiggered to cover the topic properly so that Colonial Age, etc., make perfect sense when redirected there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• All these are vague terms, very likely to occur in a more specific context. If they don't, then History of colonialism is probably best. With subsidiary articles, this gives reasonable coverage, and is already pretty long. If people really don't know what "Age of colonialism" etc refer to, this is probably more than long enough for their needs. User:SMcCandlish, what we call "colonialism" was a major feature of the Middle Ages in many areas (Poland & the Baltic area, Scotland, Iberia & so on) as well as the Crusader states. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Christianity and Shamanism

I have two requests here:

1. Improve the article History of Christianity

2. Make an article on History of Shamanism (Shamanism was the official religion of the Mongol empire).

--Genghis khan2846 (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Howdy hello Genghis! What specific improvements do you suggest/are looking for History of Christianity? The page is currently tagged as too long, and appears to have a few sections that lack sufficient citations. Is that what you're talking about? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 18:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I am not so good in English. What I want to tell you is that: 1.Christianity: Please include some maps in the article, give descriptions of the political events ( virtually nothing has been mentioned ) and complete some of the important sections for example - Carolingian Renaissance, Conversion of the Scandinavians, Puritans in North America, Revivalism, Restorationism etc. ( Please raise the article to the quality of the History of Islam). 2.Shamanism: Shamanism was one of the biggest religions of the world. It was the state religion of the Mongol empire. It was the largest religion on earth before the rise of Islam and Christianity. But where is the article for Shamanism ! We have articles for Islam and Christianity but don't have article for Shamanism !! That is really unbelievable !!! That is quite unacceptable. So these are the problems. Administrators, please try to solve these problems. Complete and improve the religion based articles. And bring equilibrium to all the religions - Islam, Christianity and Shamanism.--Genghis khan2846 (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Genghis khan2846, we have an article on Shamanism, is that kind of what you're looking for? It looks like that article could use some more information on history, do you know of any good sources (books, articles, etc.) that discuss the history of Shamanism? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

We have a whole range of articles in Category:Mongolian shamanism. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

No I want you to make an article with the title "History of Shamanism". I don’t understand whether you understand my language or not. I am explaining in short: From the political perspective: the Muslims have a great article: Turkic peoples, the Christians have British empire, and the Mongols have Mongol Empire. From the religious perspective: the Muslims have History of Islam, the Christians have History of Christianity, but the Mongols have no article!!! This is the problem. We feel that our religion has been ignored. I just want you to make an article on History of Shamanism. Shamanism is the third most important religion of the world !! Please try to understand this !!! Please make an article on Shamanism. And bring equilibrium to all the religions- Islam, Christianity and Shamanism.--Genghis khan2846 (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Genghis khan2846 The great thing about Wikipedia is that it is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you feel the encyclopedia needs an article on History of Mongolian shamanism, then you can write one. If you don't feel competent to write one, then you can go to Requested articles to request one. Either way though, regardless of whether you write it yourself or request it to be written, you need to point to reliable sources for the information. So far you seem to be asking, begging, and demanding that other people write an article about a topic which interests you and which you feel is under-covered, but you have not provided any sources. If you have sources of information and want to write an article and want help and/or advice, we can help you.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(P.S. I wouldn't consider British empire to be an article about "the Christians".) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I have found some online books here: Shamanic Worlds: Rituals and Lore of Siberia and Central Asia........Shamans: Siberian Spirituality and the Western Imagination........Animal and Shaman: Ancient Religions of Central Asia........Shamanism, History, and the State. You can use them as the references.--Genghis khan2846 (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much administrators !!! So this is the policy of Wikipedia !!! For one last time I am explaining my reasons:

Political articles: Muslims have Turkic peoples, Christians have British Empire, Mongols have Mongol Empire

Religious articles: Muslims have History of Islam, Christians have History of Christianity, Mongols have nothing !!!

We don't have a article for our religion !!! this is such unbelievable !!! So please try to solve this problem.--Genghis khan2846 (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

LISTEN to what people are saying to you! We have a whole range of articles in Category:Mongolian shamanism. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

But I want a article named "History of Shamanism". If you don't make an article called "History of Shamanism" our religion will be ignored in Wikipedia !! Why don't you understand this thing!!!

Well if you don't want to make an article on "Shamanism" you can make an article on "Tengrism". Tengrism was the Asian version of Shamanism. In the ancient age when North America was connected with Asia by the Beringia Land, Shamanism was the official religion of both the Asian and American Mongols. But then the Beringia Bridge collapsed. Over the ages the Shamanism in Asia has taken a new form. That is now known as Tengrism. Tengrism has become the official religion of the Mongol race. Tengrism was also the official religion of the Huns, the Khazars and the Turkic Khaganate. You can check out the respective articles. So if you want to make an artile on the Mongols you have to make an article on "Tengrism". Because obviously you know Tengrism is the official religion of the Mongol empire. I don't know why you don't want to make an article on Shamanism. May be because the article will be too much big. But don't worry, the article "Tengrism" will be very small. It will be very easy for you to make the article. And there will be lots of sources in internet on "Tengrism".--Genghis khan2846 (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

We already have articles Tngri, Arshi Tengri, Dayisun Tngri, Qormusta Tengri, and Sülde Tngri. Maproom (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Those are the name of some gods. They are not the History of Tengrism. Why are you objecting the "History of Tengrism". We are Mongols. Don't we have the right to have an article like History of Islam and History of Christianity--Genghis khan2846 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Genghis khan2846: As far I can see nobody is objecting to an article named History of Tengrism or History of Shamanism. Feel free to write either one yourself, or ask a friend to do so, and if said article verifies our core policies, it will be a nice addition to Wikipedia. However, nobody is compelled to write anything on Wikipedia, which is at 99.9% a volunteer-run project; so your request that someone else writes that article, now, because otherwise it is disrespectful/ignores a religion/etc., is unlikely to be well-received if you insist beyond politeness. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If I translate the article from some other versions of Wikipedia using the "Wikipedia translating tool" will that be acceptable?--Genghis khan2846 (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That depends on if the the article you translate are using Wikipedia:RELIABLE SOURCES as defined here on english WP. If it is, that may be possible, at least partly. And please take a look at WP:INDENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Your first article may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The sources used at Mongolian_shamanism#History may also be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If my English is wrong will it be acceptable?--Genghis khan2846 (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Impossible to say. Based on your English in this thread, I think such errors will not be impossible to deal with, you make yourself understood without problem. If you take your time and follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Your first article, you will be working on a draft, so you will have plenty of time to make corrections and ask for input before you submit the draft for review. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Shamanism#Mongolia may also be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest a userspace sandbox draft, first, since it appears English isn't your first language. That will give editors who are native speakers a chance to polish it before posting. I'd advise against relying entirely on machine translation; the draft will allow fixing translation erros, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Genghis khan2846 (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines

May I ask for comment on the proposed edits at Talk:Sugar#RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines? The relevant history only really goes back to the 1950s, but I think it's still in-scope here. HLHJ (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

Articles pertaining to Horn African history are currently undergoing historical revisionism through misrepresentation of sources. I would appreciate if some more people could focus in that direction. Thylacoop5 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Comparative research

An article that you have been involved in editing—Comparative research—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Waddie96 (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that History of American football positions, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Years and decades in continent categories: High and Late Middle Ages

Please join this category discussion to remove the continent layer for years and decades categories in the High and Late Middle Ages: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Years_and_decades_in_continent_categories:_High_and_Late_Middle_Ages. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC about mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht

G'day all, a RfC has been started on the Milhist talk page regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht, a daily broadcast about the activities of the Wehrmacht during WWII. Your input would be welcomed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Join this Wikiproject and attach Morocco in World War II

Hi folks. I'd love to be included in this Wikiproject, and have my page considered for inclusion. What do I need to do to follow this up? I'm new to this whole Wikipedia thing! Thanks so much for your help.--113ADP68 (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone planing to visit the British Museum?

Is anyone planing to visit the British Museum to make some photos anytime soon? There are some rare historical objects there which I would need to have photographed and uploaded on Wikimedia. Let me know if anyone is interested and I will give further details. LeGabrie (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This may not be the best place to ask. Are you sure they are on display? Best just give details & links to BM online collection pages. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Some of them are exhibited, yes. The objects in question are from Soba East, Sudan and can therefore be found in the "Ancient Egypt & Sudan" department. Many pieces in the BM catalogue don't have images displayed, except this one. If I could get photos of the most spectular pieces exhibited, including this aquamanile, I would be happy. There should also be an aquamanile looking like a chicken. LeGabrie (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I presume you've checked the copyright issues. I don't know about the British Museum, but the National Museum of Scotland allow photography only for personal use - so a photo taken there cannot, in my understanding, be published on Wikipedia. This is because not every item on display is owned by the museum, and they have to respect the wishes of the owner.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That in itself wouldn't be a problem, as the 000s of BM photos on Commons show. I doubt it is really a problem for Scotland either - see their Commons category. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

OK - interesting situation. The National Museum of Scotland definitely has a prohibition of using photographs of their exhibits taken by members of the public for anything other than personal use by the person who took the photograph. Whether or not they actually seek to enforce this rule is another matter. I suspect that they have let this one go for too long to do anything about it - but who knows.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Right, so if anyone is interested please ping me. LeGabrie (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Humanities published first article

The WikiJournal of Humanities is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's humanities, arts and social sciences content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group along with Wiki.J.Med and Wiki.J.Sci. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Editors

• Invite submissions from non-wikipedians
• Coordinate the organisation of external academic peer review
• Format accepted articles
• Promote the journal

Authors

• New Wikipedia articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
• Existing Wikipedia articles to be externally peer reviewed (analogous to GA / FA review - see submission page)
• Image articles, based around an important images, photographs or summary diagrams

If you want to know more, please see this recent interview with some WikiJournal editors, the journal's About page, or check out a comparison of similar initiatives. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

As an illustrative example, Wiki.J.Hum published its first article this month!

• Miles, Dudley; et al. (2018). "Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians". WikiJournal of Humanities. 1 (1): 1. doi:10.15347/wjh/2018.001. ISSN 2639-5347.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

On influence

Thinking about influence as a topic within history, starting with the United States, and thinking about how this might express itself in various articles: American influence on history (of the World). -Inowen (nlfte) 02:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That looks like an interesting idea, but limiting to the U.S. is too narrow. What about Rome or Britain? Something like Influence of dominant powers on history (which appears to be where you're going)? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That's going in the upward categorical direction. It would also make sense to just name the dominant powers: USA, UK, China, Russia, Rome, Greece, Israel, Japan, as there aren't too many of them. But yes, the title you suggest is the higher category, and apt for the discussion of "influence." -Inowen (nlfte) 04:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking of it as a "mother page"; the various major powers might end up with their own, branched off. You do get some issues of extent of influence (is Athens or Sparta separate from Greece?), & of comparing periods (is Athens or Persia in 200 BC equivalent of 19th Century Russia, or not?). There's also a matter of what "influence" is: effect on culture (which puts Athens very high, even above the 20thC U.S.)? Projection of power (U.S. very high, but 17th-19thC Britain arguably higher)? Or some other measure? Of course, you may decide those are all subjects the page should discuss, in which case my notional narrow focus on any one of them is moot. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Move review Paradisus Judaeorum

Paradisus Judaeorum, renamed following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews is currently in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December, and may interest this community. Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Self-citing at Piracy in the Atlantic World

Hello. Your input at User_talk:47.188.136.166 regarding these edits would be appreciated. SmartSE (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Featured article review: Albert Speer

I have nominated Albert Speer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on infobox inclusion at Fermat's Last Theorem

An RfC has been opened for the inclusion of Template:Infobox mathematical statement at Fermat's Last Theorem:

• Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem#Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement.

It pertains to some of the historical content in the article in case editors here may be interested. Comments are most welcome. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments on List of Photographers

You are invited to join the discussion regarding edits to List of Photographers. The discussion is addressing the following questions:

• Within each section, should the entries by sorted alphabetically or chronologically?
• Should date of birth and date of death be added to entries?
  • Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article?
• Is the Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death?
  • If a source is deemed reliable, should there be a limit on how many times it is used?

Your contributions are welcome. Thank you! Qono (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction at Antisemitic canard

There's a discussion going on about whether or not there were pogroms following the Black Death. Please contribute your thoughts at Talk:Antisemitic canard#Contradiction about post-Black Death massacres. Mathglot (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Three Kingdoms for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Three Kingdoms is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Three Kingdoms until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Russian Empire for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Russian Empire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Russian Empire until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Modern history for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Modern history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Modern history until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Julius Caesar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Julius Caesar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Julius Caesar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)

Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured article review: Albert Kesselring

I have nominated Albert Kesselring for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on details of an organization's founder

There is currently a RfC at Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group) about whether details of the founder's death should be included in an article about the organization. You are invited to participate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Well, User:Slugger O'Toole, at least you phrased that neutrally--good. But "details of" is actually a bit overblown: you completely erased the man's death. Might as well remove his name. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Cold War for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Cold War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cold War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hans-Joachim Marseille

Hans-Joachim Marseille, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran

Your feedback would be appreciated at this request for comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran. Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Advertisement Banner

From my understanding making advertisement banner is best. I am not a well experienced and is wondering if any more experienced editors can help. The advertisement banner will bring more people to this project. If banner is completed or you want to help, talk to me at my talk page.--PrimaLInnstinct (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

• Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
• From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
• Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Civilizations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Civilizations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Civilizations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:World history

Your feedback is requested at a disputed title discussion about the article currently known as "World History". Please participate at Talk:World History#Disputed title. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Genealogy

If anyone here is interested, we are looking for volunteers at WikiProject Genealogy. Thanks! Tea and crumpets (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:History of Gymnastics

Category:History of Gymnastics is being discussed again, for possible renaming, merger or deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_5#Category:History_of_Gymnastics. – Fayenatic London 21:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC of interest

The following RfC may be of interest to members of this group: [7]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Expulsion of Jews from Spain

An article of interest to this project—Expulsion of Jews from Spain—has been proposed for merging from Alhambra decree. Your feedback would be welcome at the merge discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Seeking collaboration/assistance

Greetings to all,

Putting out this message out there to seek collaboration and/or any assistance any of you could offer with regards to two pages: Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad and the Bengal Sultanate. Aiming to better the quality of the former to satisfy the criteria of possible future FA nomination and the later to the quality required for a possible GA nomination. I had worked on the former and helped promote it to a GA in 2012, but given schedule with regards to school and personal life I do not see being able to work on these two alone.

Alternatively copying and pasting this on other relevant WikiProject discussions. Looking forward to your response. Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk!) 07:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Popular pages

Greetings, For "Assessment page" and Sidebar, I added a section for "Popular pages", a bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

RM of interest

Here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:2000s for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:2000s is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:2000s until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Harold Cottam GA review

In May, Harold Cottam, an article which comes under the purview of this WikiProject, was nominated to be recognised as a Good Article. Unfortunately, the nominator now seems to be retired. If anyone interested in the topic wants to adopt the article and shepherd it through the review process, please make a note on the review page. If there is no interest by the afternoon (British Summer Time) of Saturday 31 August, I will procedurally close the review. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Note left on GA page. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia merger proposal

It is proposed that Turkish Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) be merged with Bosanska Krajina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wish to invite editors to give their input on proposal in merger discussion at Talk page Bosanska Krajina. It would be helpful if editors are willing to express their neutral POV, especially since discussion is already afflicted with involved editor(s) WP:CANVASING, resulting in inputs from WP:Single-purpose accounts.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

William Huse Dunham, Jr.

I am trying to figure out if William Huse Dunham, Jr., a Yale historian, is/was notable. He authored a few books, but I cannot find his obituaries on Newspapers.com. Anyone able to find them please?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Referencing and footnotes assistance

Hi, I'm helping out on an article on Abū_al-Faraj_al-Iṣfahānī with quite complex references and footnotes. I think that separate 'references' and 'works cited' (e.g. in the style of this article) would work better for it but I'm not familiar with how to implement it (I usually stick to science articles where just referencing with cite_journal is pretty simple). Would anyone be able to drop by and lend a hand? Thanks in advance for any assistance! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Expanding history of fad diets

Hello I have worked on the scientific side of fad diets, but I came across a lot of resources about their history, and I have made a succinct summary of the most salient historical features, but I think a historian could enjoy extending this further, as there are lots of high quality resources on the topic and a quite rich history For a starting point, I have selected several good references, some are already used in fad diets#History but could be expanded, others are in the related dumping ground. Thank you for helping!

Also most of these sources can be used for other entries, such as dieting, obesity or fat. --Signimu (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate museum article

Maybe someone here can help with this. Francisco Villa Museum is actually about the Historical Museum of the Mexican Revolution (which is not called the Francisco Villa Museum), which already has an article, but there is a separate Francisco Villa Museum in Durango. Merge protocol prohibits merge-and-delete for attribution reasons; does anyone know anything about the museum in Durango that could live at that title? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• At the least you can try a disam page (which may be a good idea anyway), even with a redlink. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Template discussion

There is a discussion about Template:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War which may interest participants at this Wikiproject. Please give your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 14#Template:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Standardization of era "successions"?

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Mousterian#Clean up era "succession" mess.

This started as a one-article issue report, but looking around I see that the problem is pretty common (in short: conflicting "preceding/following era" links in infoboxes, navboxes, leads, and article bodies).

It needs a site-wide solution (perhaps a cross-wikiproject guideline or at least a WP:PROJPAGE with some advice in it).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion about removal of Modern history article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2#What to do about Modern history merge. Essentially, Modern history has been merged into other articles after some very light discussion, and it's throwing those of us over at WP:VA for a bit of a loop, with some objecting to the change. It'd be helpful to have some historians weighing in, and to have more discussion overall about such a significant change. Sdkb (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Announcing new coordinator

Hi everyone. For now, I am volunteering to be a coordinator page admin here for Wikipedia:WikiProject History. this is simply a volunteer role, to help with various basic tasks. I welcome comments, suggestions, feedback and input from anyone. Please feel free to be in touch any time. Thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

John Robinson & his circus

I just created these two articles:

• John_Robinson Circus
• John H. Robinson (circus)

I am happy for feedback and improvement of the articles. I do have some questions:

• Talk:John_Robinson_Circus#Questions_for_other_editors

Any other relevant projects I should post this. Maybe for architecture or for entertainment? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

David Tornheim, these ideas sound excellent. by the way I would like to volunteer to become one of the coordinators here at WikiProject History. I would also like to start a new task force here, for documenting contemporary history. I have edited here at Wikipedia for over ten years, and have edited numerous history articles. Also, i am highly involved now in creating and updating current timelines articles, especially 2020 in politics and government, 2020 in Yemen, Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January-April 2020). are you familiar with this project? I'm wondering whom to contact. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

correction to coordinator of this project

the editor who is currently listed as coordinator in the section Wikipedia:WikiProject_History#Organization_and_Coordination is no longer active on Wikipedia in any way. On that basis, I am removing their name from the listing. feel free to comment. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

adding as coordinator for project

for the time being, I am listing myself as a project coordinator for WikiProject History. this may be for an indefinite time period, or a limited one. anyone else who wants to volunteer for this role, or in any role, or to to participate here in any way, is welcome to do so. Please feel free to provide any comments or feedback. I appreciate your help and input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Would like to start a task force, and also volunteer here

I would like to start a Task Force at WikiProject History; it would be for Contemporary history. How would I do so?

Also, I would like to become a volunteer coordinator at WikiProject History. Is that okay? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Unless anyone else objects, in the absence of active leadership you are welcome to take up that mantle. That said, WikiProjects and their task forces are meant to coordinate work already being done. Contemporary history as a field is already overrun by mere journalism, so I'm not sure how much legitimate historical work is being done on events so recent. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Chris troutman, thanks for your reply. I have done so. I welcome your input and feedback. this is meant as a collaborative effort and project. I welcome your thoughts on any aspect, any time. Please feel free to shoot me a note any time on anything at all, if you have any comments, questions or concerns that you'd like to raise in any way.

As far as contemporary history goes, yes, it may be overrun by mere journalism. however, that is the precise challenge in addressing this area. as you know, Wikipedia maintains dozens of timeline articles for the current year, all being continuously updated. I have played a role in creating and updating several of them. the best example of this topical area is Category:2020 by country. yes, we need to exercise good judgment, and use reliable sources, but that's what Wikipedia is all about. if we can enrich Wikipedia by keeping such articles updated responsbily, then we can provide one more valuable service here. I'll be glad to discuss any part of this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Chris troutman, please take a look at the note that I added in this section:Wikipedia:WikiProject_History/Collaboration#Notice_for_task_force_members. I removed the note. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Move "Epoch (reference date)" to "Epoch (date reference)"?

Please see Talk:Epoch (date reference)#RFC:Undiscussed page move. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:History of California for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:History of California is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:History of California until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

changing "departments" to "working groups"

we are changing all "departments" here to general task forces "working groups." this is because "department" implies an official group that is continuously in function, and made up of a core of people who are continually assigned to that role. a "working group" can change based on the nature of the task, and based on the availability of the people within it. so therefore, we will change the term used. I think perhaps anyone wishing to participate in any of these functions could add their name in the space for that group. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject History needs people

Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator page coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.

• If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.

• and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!

• For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section: WikiProject History needs you!!!!

• Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing {{ping|sm8900}} in your reply.

we welcome your input. thanks!!

(the note above has been posted at a number of WikiProjects and other resource pages today.) --Sm8900 (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Please read WP:OWN. Wikipedia does not have "page admins" but we do have WikiProject coordinators. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, as noted above, all of the previous coordinators are no longer active here. and as per WP:OWN, I do not feel I can claim that title for myself. If you really object to my use of the title of "page admin," for myself, I can restore my own title of "Coordinator." it was just an idea, and my only purpose was to help this WikiProject to develop,as noted above. I do appreciate your very helpful input and ideas here. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

based on your note above, I have changed the title to "page coordinator," rather than "page admin." I'm happy to be flexible on this, if people find certain terms to be better or more helpful. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

new task force

Hi all. Okay, I have added a new task force. it includes myself and Michael E Nolan. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I'm a history buff, not a professional, but I'll do what I can to further this project.Michael E Nolan (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael E Nolan, thanks. your efforts on this topical area have been great. I appreciate your note above, and all your efforts. And by the way, I'm a history buff as well. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Genealogy Day

When is Genealogy Day? 14th March ?, March 9? or other?--Kaiyr (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Scope of article Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques

Please consider contributing to this Request for Comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, I have recently found a conflict between sources on one matter regarding Old Serbia. I have made a deal with one admin that I shall not edit the article without prior community consensus/feedback. Other editors tagged have not been active on the page and are passive about it, therefore I would like to invite you to help out with this issue. I personally have little experience when we have some conflicting info. on the same subject. I believe that a fresh perspective would improve the article. [8] ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your note letting us know about this item. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Layout and guidelines for historians?

I created Eugene C. Barker about a week ago and it is still a work in progress. Does WP History have guidelines for the structure of articles about historians? I think I have enough material for a brief discussion of critique's of Barker's work and of his influences. Is this appropriate and where should it go in the article? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

hey

I would like you to review this article to know its importance. att 2804:14C:5BB5:8076:319D:445:6440:DA32 (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

new wikifauna

Hi there! I just decided, I am a Wikipedia:WikiPrairie Dog. If you want, come over and join us! just add the user box below to your page! see ya!!

--Sm8900 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on wording in the lead of 1976 Tangshan earthquake

There is an RfC on the wording of "ceased to exist" regarding the lead of 1976 Tangshan earthquake. All editors are encouraged to participate. Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding new tab, for newly-expanded community news resource

Hi everyone. I plan to add a tab to the header for Wikipedia:WikiProject History, to add a link to the Wikipedia:Community bulletin board. I have posted a new section there, which provides a set of notices for various community editing events, including contests, edit-a-thons, group efforts at various WikiProjects, as well as elsewhere, and other such items.

the purpose of this tab is to promote the Community bulletin board as a common resource and outlet, for use by WikiProjects as a group, and the Wikipedia community as a whole. By doing so, we will provide more substance to help build up Wikipedia as a collaborative resource, a community, and a group editing process that is truly open to all.

As Wikipedia develops into the next century, as our fragile planet grows more and more vulnerable, as new technologies offer us new ways to work together, it is up to us to continue to develop Wikipedia as a community resource and intellectual repository, to serve the needs of our society and our world.

By building up resources that can open up our project to a wider community base, we can provide valuable new ways to build for the future. in my opinion, this is one important area that we can look at, to find new ways to expand and to develop. by doing so, we can build Wikipedia into a greater resource, for the next century and beyond. I hope that sounds good to everyone here. Please feel free to comment. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested article: 1812 Ottoman Empire plague epidemic

In 1812 there seems to have been a significant plague outbreak in the Ottoman Empire, which seems to have begun in Constantinople and traveled to other parts of the empire including Egypt, and later also spread outside of the empire's borders.

It seems to have had a massive impact, but it is barely covered on Wikipedia. There's an article about Caragea's plague which hit Wallachia (then an Ottoman vassal) in 1813–14, and I am currently in the process of writing an article on the 1813–14 Malta plague epidemic. Both seem to have derived from the 1812 Constantinople outbreak (it arrived in Malta via Egypt).

I think it would be useful if there would be an article covering the entire outbreak - would any members of this WikiProject be willing to help out? A source about the outbreak in Odessa can be found here.

I am also making this request on other WikiProjects including WP Medicine, WP Turkey and WP Egypt.

Xwejnusgozo (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I created a stub at 1812–19 Ottoman plague epidemic. Any further expansion is very welcome! Xwejnusgozo (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

I have started a Peer Review of Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom with a view to getting this to Featured Article status. The review page is here. I would be very grateful if editors would leave comments there. I would be even more grateful if you come along and support the article when it gets put up for FA. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirect page "European Imperialism" under discussion

Hey there. I nominated "European Imperialism" and "European imperialism" for discussion. Then the pages got relisted twice, so the nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 18, where I'm inviting you to improve consensus. George Ho (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism at Lord of Lochaber

Can someone roll back vandalism on 10 April for ‎ 80.3.196.35 and ‎JonnyBrum. Thanks Newm30 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

List of largest empires - defining an empire for the purposes of the list

Hi there,

Contributions would be appreciated to a discussion on the talk page of the list of largest empires as to exactly what should count as an empire for the purposes of that article - specifically, whether the US and the Soviet Union should be included. I'd be grateful for input from anyone who has an opinion on the matter, as given that edits back and forth are going on on the article currently on a near daily basis, and the article has been controversial for years, I feel it to be important that consensus is established as soon as possible on the matter.

Thanks very much! | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 11:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect legend

Hi, Someone ought to look at the legend of the map "Diachronic distribution of Celtic peoples" at the top of the article Pre-Celtic. One colour is missing, and another may be mislabelled, but since I know nothing about the subject, it would be better to leave it to someone who does. 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:D906:4C2F:A42:F402 (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

RfCs on MOS:NOTUSA and lead paragraph wording for Battle of Huế

Hi! There are two RfCs open about wording in the article Battle of Huế, located at its talk page here and here. Any participation is welcome! — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Basilica

Publicizing a Request for Comment on Basilica. GPinkerton (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Manzanar featured article review

I have nominated Manzanar for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The external links on the Manzanar article are being discussed. There are currently 18 of them, which is excessive. Please come participate in the discussion at Talk:Manzanar#External links. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Offer to stand by and support anyone doing history of medicine

I most commonly post at WP:WikiProject Medicine. If anyone ever see issues related to those fields then I would join here.

One part of history that I want to develop, and which needs 1000+ new articles, is history of infectious disease eradication. In our modern world too many people have forgotten the many health campaigns to eradicate disease. To eliminate smallpox in a famous case, half the countries in the world had to collaborate on a national scale to do everything required to eliminate all infection. Even for diseases which are not globally eradicated, there are many diseases on track to be eradicated and many national stories of how particular countries accomplished eradication for themselves. Right now the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing and I regret hearing stories of people doubting that infectious disease is bad, or that eradication is possible, or that society has no answer for infectious disease. WikiProject Medicine mostly addresses accuracy in health care, whereas disease eradication is a mix of current public health for countries in progress and inspirational stories from countries which accomplished this. If anyone shows up asking about history and wanting to do anything COVID-19 related, then they can pick any of the major infectious diseases and a country and look up the well-documented eradication stories to document how these things play out. Thanks Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, that's very helpful. i appreciate your note on that. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

hello

Hello my name is Andrewhistory(allthough my nickname is historian). I love History(and know alot too) and would like to help, however as a new wikapedia user I need some help myself. I would like to know if other people can help me with my sandbox page where I give an over view up history. I am Happy to help and participate in this wikiproject.Also if you can edit it here is the link

Many thanks,HISTORIAN (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

HISTORIAN, thanks for your note. sorry, but I think that one-on-one mentorship is a bit outside of the scope of our wikiproject here. However, I think I could suggest two possible places that you could visit for individual guidance or help. you could visit WP:Teahouse, to ask any specific questions. also, you could visit WP:Adoption, to possibly arrange for an experienced editor to serve as a mentor or adopter. I hope that is helpful. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal at Charding Nullah

Hi, there is a proposal here to split part of the article on the river Charding Nullah into a new article called Demchok dispute. Any input is appreciated! — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearances

The term clearances has redirected to Highland Clearances for many years. Someone is proposing to change this to a disambiguation redirect, but doesn't seem to have notified any of the projects concerned, so I am posting this to each of the projects. If you wish to comment, please do so here:

• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_27#Clearances

--188.30.171.198 (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback requested at German rearmament

Your feedback would be appreciated at a requested move at Talk:German rearmament. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

At Talk:Slavery

Correct me if I'm knocking at the wrong door (this WP isn't listed there but it seems mightily relevant). See this. I copied an interesting bibliography which could be used to expand the given article, but I don't have access to these sources and given that they're mostly whole books WP:RX is of little use. In case one of you can investigate this before it gets buried in the talk page archives that would be nice. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox map change RFC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mapframe maps in infoboxes could result in major changes in how historical locations are shown in infobox maps. buidhe 06:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Appropriate content on articles about country estates

Over at Lydney Park/Talk:Lydney Park there is discussion of whether the source of funds to build a country estate is appropriate material for inclusion in the article about the country estate. The twist here is that the source of funds was the slave trade and the country estate is still in the hands of the establishing family. Your input would be appreciated. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of the term "Discovered" when discussing early explorers

I have seen some concern expressed about attributing the "discovery of a new land" to a particular explorer, for example claiming, Hernán Cortés and his men "discovered Baja California Peninsula". From a European perspective it does seem fair to say he discovered the peninsula, but there were people already living there before his arrival. Is there a more worldview approach to describing such accomplishments that the History WikiProject has determined is more appropriate? Is there a previous discussion on the matter? Thank you. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

History portal

I have mindfully and cautiously made some minor improvements to Portal:History, including the addition of some FA-class articles. See Portal talk:History for specific details, and feel free to comment there if desired. I have also proposed on the talk page for the portal's content selection criteria be expanded, specifically to allow the addition of GA-class articles to the portal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Pais de los Maynas

Pais de los Maynas is currently at AfD. I This made sense, given the version that was AfDed. I've reworked it substantially since then, but am no expert at all – so would appreciate any help you could give on the article. Thanks! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about how to phrase lead sentence of articles dealing with fictional Mormon figures and places

Hi, there is a discussion at Historicity of the Book of Mormon regarding the best way to phrase the opening lines of articles that deal with Mormon figures that have no basis in history, but are part of the Mormon belief system. I'm looking to get more editors to comment; currently, it seems as though only Mormon-leaning editors have joined the discussion, so I would appreciate some outside opinions. Thank you. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone saw this, because it seems like very few people have joined the discussion so far. Is this the right place to post a notice like this? If there's a better place, can someone please point it out to me? JimKaatFan (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this page has quite a few watchers, but it is not as active as it once was (I think it's on the upswing though, in recent months, as User:Sm8900 has started to put more energy into it). It could be that those here have limited experience on articles focusing so directly on religious/legendary topics. You might try Wikiproject Religion. They would almost certainly have a standard way to handle it--It seems like an issue that would come up a lot.--MattMauler (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

MattMauler is correct. thanks for your eloquent reply. and JimKaatFan, I am glad you posted that inquiry here. MattMauler is correct about this project's status, and some other places and venues that you might try. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

An offer to help

Further to Sm8900's comments above, I would like to introduce myself. I have only been active for 30 months and am still finding my way around. My speciality areas are assessment and content improvement; especially getting articles promoted to GA or FA.

So if you would like an article assessing; or advice on whether an article is ready for GA or FA nomination; or what an article needs before it is ready - then feel free to post a request here pinging me and I may be able to proffer some helpful advice.

This will hopefully go some way towards meeting Sm8900's aspiration that the project be a place "where other editors can seek help or get questions answered". I look forward to doing some work here. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your message here, Gog the Mild. glad to have you here. welcome!!! looking forward to working together on this, as things develop. cheers!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Cleavage (breasts)

There is a long history section in the article. But, it is kind of messy and doesn't read too well. Seriously need some help. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Communities

Hi folks, pleased to say I've nominated 1986 enlargement of the European Communities as a featured article candidate!

If there's anyone here interested in political history, especially that of Spain, Portugal or the European Union, it'd be great if you could take a look through and pop some comments or a support/oppose !vote over at the page for its candidacy.

Cheers! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Demchok pre- and post-1962 Sino-Indian War

There is an RfC at Talk:Demchok sector#RfC on 1953-1962 control and administrative split of Demchok about whether to mention the pre- and post-1962 Sino-Indian War status of the articles Demchok sector, Demchok, Ladakh, Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture, and Demchok (historical village). Your input is appreciated. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Splitting Political history of the United Kingdom (1945–present)

Have a look at the link here to comment on the proposal to split the article into two pages. Llewee (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Anne Frank

There's an RfC regarding Anne Frank that this WikiProject might be interested in. Loki (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

In wake of Beirut, Texas City disaster needs attention

There's been a huge spike in pageviews (almost 100k) for Texas City disaster, a 1947 explosion also caused by ammonium nitrate. It has a citations maintenance template and could probably use some attention. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC on merger of William Dickson (Falklands) into Antonio Rivero

The discussion can be found on the talk page of Antonio Rivero, the basic question is whether significant coverage exists for William Dickson in any reliable source. Any input welcome. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar award with Nazi imagery

Hello, I wish to make editors aware of a discussion that is occurring on Wikimedia commons. Here is the link [9]. A creator has uploaded a barnstar with Nazi imagery that is intended to be awarded to editors who work on articles related to Nazism. It's not for articles - it is specifically intended for use on a userpage which the author makes clear here [10]. I feel this "award" is offensive in the extreme and its potential to be used as a personal attack or harassment is obvious regardless of the creator's intentions. Please contribute to the discussion. Thank you.   // Timothy :: talk  02:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The barnstar in question seems to have been deleted. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Interested editors of colonization

Hello! I do not want to join the WikiProject, but I am looking for editors who are interested in colonization, historical or not. I am not saying that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonialism should be revived because it was focus on a typical branch of colonization. I shall also look for the editors who are interested in space colonization, which will be one of the scopes of the hypothetical WikiProject Colonization. Thank you. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Proper use of sources for Sobibor extermination camp?

I’ve been substantially revising the Sobibor extermination camp article, and I was wondering if I could get a sanity check about use of sources. I’m not a trained historian and it's kind of a tricky literature, so I'm trying to be very careful. My questions are about general principles, but I can give specific examples if necessary.

(1) Let’s say X and Y are both secondary sources, and that X cites Y for some fact. When reporting that fact on Wikipedia, is there ever a good reason to cite both X and Y, or would doing so inevitably create a toxic citation loop? Can X citing Y indicate that X did some original reasoning or retraced Y’s steps? Does it matter if one could question Y's reliability as a source?

(2) Similarly, how much should I worry about secondary sources that rely on partially or entirely overlapping primary sources?

(3) Should I worry if a seemingly reliable secondary source frequently makes factual claims sourced back to a single firsthand account? Botterweg14 (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

History of the cleavage

I have a pretty big history section in the Cleavage (breasts) article, which needs to be shortened. It also probably needs some chronology fixing. Checking out the sources would also help, if possible. Can I request members of this project to take a look and advise? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir: I am unable to help, but putting in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests may be a good way forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I did. And recieved some nice help too. But, for obvious reasons, I really think I should get some advise from historians on the section about history. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Request move to History of the Czech Republic

You might be interested in participating in the request to move the article "History of the Czech lands" to "History of the Czech Republic", see the move discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Asian art, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Norman conquest of southern Italy

Currently there is an edit-war in that article. Can anyone verify that the current version is right?-- 3knolls (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Extra eyes requested on Nicholas II

There's been some heavy editing on the article of late. I'm not sure it's entirely been NPOV. Interested editors are kindly asked to keep an eye on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting the taskforce back together!

As the title suggests, I'm rebooting the North American History taskforce. It would kind of help if I wasn't the only one who was in it. I was planning on making it into a portal when we get enough participants. Please help! I'm lonely... Ghinga7 (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC) P.S. I'm leaving similar messages at a couple of wikiprojects and the talk page of the History of North America article. Hope you can join.

@Ghinga7:, that sounds fine. thanks so much for your post here! yes, you can absolutely proceed with that. we will provide any official postings, notices, promotions, listings that you may wish. please continue with your great idea. we will be glad to support and to promote this. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @User:Sm8900! I really appreciate the support. A couple of things. Do you know anybody who would be interested in this project? Please feel free to invite them to put their name on the list of members. I also would like some help with the technical side of things, if anybody here knows about that sort of stuff. Thanks for any help you can give! Ghinga7 (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ghinga7: no problem. thanks for your note!! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Spelling of Kyiv

There’s a broad conversation about using different spellings of Kyiv in article titles in certain subjects, at talk:Kyiv#Related articles. This may affect some guidelines. —Michael Z. 20:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Modern vs contemporaneous country names in categories

This category discussion is growing into a fundamental discussion when we should modern country names versus when we should use contemporaneous country names in categories. The discussion started with Category:11th century in Egypt versus Category:11th century in the Fatimid Caliphate. Feel free to participate. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Attention all hands

Looking up and down the page, we have a few notices here, but not much response. I myself do not have equal expertise in all fields and all eras of history, so that is why i don;'t try to answer every inquiry here. does anyone here want to suggest any general guidelines, ideas, strategies, etc,m for how we should go about addressing history topics, as they come up?

I don't have a specific topic or thought to address on this. my only thought is that since the notices above have not gotten a lot of response, perhaps we should try to start a general discussion here on history in general; i.e. any issues that any of us have noticed,m any ideas or techniques that anyone here might like to discuss, or anything else at all.

to spark some discussion, i will tag our assessment expert, @Gog the Mild:. how have you been, what have you been up to, and what's new in the goings-on here at Wikipedia, in the field of history? feel free to wax forth as much or as little as you might wish. we are all agog at your work!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, “assessment expert”!? Any hoo, I am currently on holiday, so my recent output has been low. Not helped by spending a couple of nights high solo wild camping - great fun, but no internet.

I recently completed my series of eleven Featured Articles on the First Punic War when the article on the Treaty ending the war was promoted last month and First Punic War yesterday. Work on the Second and Third Punic Wars is underway. Last month, Battle of Dunbar (1650) my collaborative effort with Girth Summit - an expert on the period - was promoted; I did the fighty bits while GS dealt with the complicated nuances.

Over the past month I have reviewed 5 GANs, 5 ACRs, and 8 FACS. Lower than usual because of my involvement in the WikiCup. I hope to resume normal service shortly.

Possibly because of some of the above I am blissfully unaware of what is currently going on in Wikipedia more generally.

This the sort of thing you are after?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

yup, that's terrific. exactly what I wanted to find out about. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

new items for contemporary history

hi! I created some new items to help with documenting contemporary history. open to any feedback. thanks!

here they are:

• 2020s in political history
• Template: 2020s in political history

--Sm8900 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Peter H. Reill

I have created the article "Peter H. Reill". German Wikipedia has an article about him. Please expand our article as you see fit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: lede of French Revolution

An Rfc concerning the lede of French Revolution is under discussion at Talk:French Revolution#rfc_CF45697. Your feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

some ideas

hi all. i got some great ideas from a colleague here, WhatamIdoing. I am pasting it here, just to make a note for myself. thanks!! this is from a discussion at the talk page for WP:COUNCIL.

I think you are correct in identifying the lack of responses (to some requests) as a potential problem. You want people to think that WPHIST is a useful place. No one person can know everything, but getting some sort of response might help. You may be able to help find the "right" person by looking at the contributors to related articles or related WikiProjects. If you can ping someone with a personal request, that can help get responses. Another useful thing, when the request is for help at an article's talk page, is to post a note on the WikiProject's page when someone did reply on the talk page. That makes people reading it feel like the group is being helpful, even if most people don't know anything about the subject. You might not want to do that for every single request, but I encourage you to try it out on occasion.}}

--Sm8900 (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Additional reviewer needed

G'day all, I currently have the article on the late Yugoslav and Serbian historian Milorad Ekmečić at Milhist A-Class review, and would appreciate it if someone from this project would be willing to have a look at it. It is the first article on a historian I have brought to A-Class, and while I'm happy I have done a pretty reasonable job on his life in general, I am unsure if I have sufficiently covered his contribution to history. The review page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Milorad Ekmečić and the Milhist A-Class criteria are at WP:MH/A. Thanks in advance! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, thanks for your note!!! and allow me to give you a hearty welcome to WikiProject History!

everyone, Peacemaker67 is the Lead Coordinator over at Wikiproject Military History. check out their page sometime; their wikiproject is immense, active and awesome. if you want to see what a fully realized wikiproject on history looks like, drop by there sometime!! they encompass all eras, all continents, all cultures and all topics!!! seriously, they have tasks forces for all regions, all eras, and guidelines for a wealth of topics. we salute them heartilyl!!

feel free to drop by any time!! cheers! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the welcome and kind words about Milhist, Sm8900! Ekmečić has now passed A-Class review, but I would appreciate it if someone from here could have a look when it pops up at FAC towards the end of the year. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Are list showing leaders of each nation and what armorials they have, notable?

Various things listed at Category:Armorials of presidents are up for nomination now, some have been deleted already. Those who study history, are these sorts of things mentioned in history books about these people? Dream Focus 17:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR for Battle of Blenheim

I have nominated Battle of Blenheim for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 02:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you access this article from Diplomacy & Statecraft?

Hi, I need access to this 2007 T&F article by Keith Hamilton from the journal Diplomacy & Statecraft. It's twenty pages. I can see the abstract and footnotes, but not the body. Can you help? Thanks.P.S. If you've helped, please make a note below, to avoid unnecessary duplicate effort. Thanks in advance! email me. Mathglot (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

References

American Revolutionary War has an RFC

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Which title best defines the scope for the American Revolutionary War?
discussion summarized by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

A. "American Revolutionary War”

B. "War of the American Revolution"

continuity - used at this WP article and sister articles for 19 years - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America - participants British & US Congress with respective allies, auxiliaries & combatants - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US: independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure - results - US independence & republic; Britain the biggest US trade partner & finances US expanding business & Treasury - reliable scholarly reference Britannica for the general reader - prominent adherents - all 15 history Pulitzer winner scholars on the topic

modern update - uses 'vast majority of sources' found in a browser search - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America, spread to Anglo-Bourbon (Fr.&Sp.) War-across worldwide empires, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War-North Atlantic, Second Mysore War-Indian subcontinent & Ocean - participants British & US Congress, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Mysore - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure -- Bourbons: Gibraltar, Jamaica, Majorca, expand Gambia trade, expand India trade -- Dutch - free trade with North America & Caribbean -- Mysore wider east-Indian sub-continent sphere of influenced results - Second British Empire, Spanish Majorca, French Gambia, further decline of Dutch Republic - reliable scholarly reference [world military dictionary] for the military specialist - prominent adherents - Michael Clodfelter, more to follow

Comments

Calendar (New Style) Act 1750: request for 'sanity check' in anticipation of formal GA peer review process.

If anybody could spare ten or fifteen minutes please, would they give Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 a preliminary assessment? I plan to propose it for peer review with a view to achieving GA but rather that it didn't fall at the first fence that I hadn't even noticed was there. Someone coming to it cold can take the long view that escapes involved editors. (This is the Act by which the British Empire finally adopted the Gregorian Calendar). Thank you in anticipation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman: I have thrown a few drive-by comments at the article talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:, once again, thank you but especially for your quick response. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I've also added a brief comment on the talk page. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both again. Since then, the article has been stone-washed, sand-blasted and air-dried, in the light of your very valuable advice. If you or others have a little time to spare, would you please give it another scan before I put it in for GAN review? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Urban history

After you have your project moving again, there should be some opportunities to collaborate on some of the "History of Foo" articles. Some of the articles about the history of cities are GA and FA, but some of them need overhauls. One example of the latter is History of Houston. I have improved the sourcing of the article: it had a B-rating from the Houston project, but it was obviously rated when the standards were not as high. Just something to keep in mind for the future if you have editors who are interested. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

that's good to know. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sherwin-Williams article updates

Hello editors, MiraSherwin-Williams here to see if there are any interested editors willing to take a look at my most recent request on the Sherwin-Williams Talk page. Specifically, I have drafted content to add a History section to the current article and posted it, along with references, for the community's review. I included the edit request template with my original post but it remains unanswered so far. I am requesting reviewing editors to check my work and integrate some version of this new draft into the current article on my behalf. I will not do so myself because of the site's guidelines for conflict of editors like me. Thanks in advance for any assistance offered! You can view my full request HERE Thanks! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

More reviewers needed for a WWII history FAC

G'day all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ba Congress/archive1 has image and source reviews, and one editor has expressed an interest in reviewing, but it could do with a couple more, otherwise it is in danger of being archived. Any assistance would be appreciated. NB: My nom. Thanks in anticipation, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Scope of Template:Millennia

There is a discussion about the content of Template:Millennia. See Template talk:Millennia. Vpab15 (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Lenin and Stalin's parents

Please, can you search about the political ideas of those people during the reigns of Alexandre II, Alexandre III, and Nicholas II, and edit it? Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.68.104 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide has an RFC

Uyghur genocide has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mikehawk10 Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Liberation of France

The article Liberation of France is out of Draft, and there's plenty of work that still needs to be done to complete it, as well as a lot of rough edges to be smoothed. Your contributions to the article or comments at the Talk page would be welcome. Mathglot (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Holodomor

Hello an editor is proposing to remove large amounts of information and sources about the Holodomor from Holodomor in modern politics. Interested editors can help by providing feedback on the talk page and additional references for the content. Thanks,  // Timothy :: talk  12:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Organization of articles on dynasties

Some of the articles on Vietnamese history have been recently re-organized by Laska666: each dynasty article was changed to be about the family, rather than as if it was a state (e.g. Lê dynasty before and after); the "country" article was then shifted to the name Đại Việt (before and after).

This change deviates from how the articles for other East Asian dynastic countries are organized, such as China (e.g. Tang dynasty, Song dynasty, Ming dynasty) and Korea (e.g. Goguryeo, Goryeo, Joseon), where the ruling family and legal frameworks both change. On the other hand, it is more consistent with how European dynasties are organized (e.g. Kingdom of England and House of Tudor), where the ruling family changes but the legal framework does not.

Both systems make sense, but for different situations. Is there an more formal existing consensus for how the articles on Vietnam are organized? Any thoughts on how it should be organized moving forward?

The historical situation with Vietnam's monarchy seems more in line with the Chinese and Korean dynasties than those in Europe. The new state of the articles on Vietnamese dynasties, like that at Lê dynasty, also provides substantially less information. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC), changed example links & added last paragraph 19:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC); strike-through ambiguous "other" 04:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a precedent for a difference between how Chinese dynasties and other dynasties are organized. Chinese dynasties are not named after the ruling families. The names, in effect, served as geographical names. Han was ruled by the Liu, Tang was ruled by the Li, Ming was ruled by the Zhu, Qing was ruled by the Aisin Gioro, and so on. In Vietnam's case, I do not believe that is true, so perhaps there is precedent there to have a different naming convention, although I am not a specialist in that area. Qiushufang (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: The Korean dynasties are not named after the families either though. Removing information about the states during the dynasties to focus solely on the families also seems to be substantially less informative. The difference between the Lê dynasty before and after is striking. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC); strike-through 22:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that information on the overall political history of the states should not be removed from the dynastic/family articles. The comparison between Chinese/Korean dynasties and Vietnamese dynasties does not work though because Korean "dynasties" are organized in a similar fashion to China, aka the dynastic names are not the family names, whereas Vietnamese dynasties are. For example the Early Lê dynasty was founded by Lê Hoàn, but the Tang dynasty was founded by Li Yuan and Goryeo was founded by Wang Geon. The confusion comes from Chinese and Korean "dynasties" actually being state names whereas Vietnamese dynasties actually are family names, so there's a bit of inconsistency there. The equivalent of Tang or Joseon would therefore not be the Early Lê dynasty, but Dai Viet or some other Vietnamese state name. For what it's worth, I fought against the removal of information and linking to Dai Viet on the basis of providing information. It does not make much sense to me to remove the information entirely when the alternative of less or no information is obviously inferior. Qiushufang (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't mean that I disagreed with what you said about the dynasty naming. It's a valid point. But these naming difference are still just matters of naming rather than any substantive historical differences with how power was transferred.

Right, and a restructure to move all of the historical information into the overarching Đại Việt article wouldn't solve that issue either, since it would lead to a bloated article that would need to be split anyways into the rule of each dynasty. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Solution is obviously to provide enough information on each dynasty in Dai Viet so the reader can reach a working understanding of its history, but also detailed information in each dynasty page, but that would require more work than simply deleting content and repasting it in Dai Viet. Qiushufang (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree; and for the current articles on each dynasty that wouldn't really involve any changes (besides general improvements of adding referenced content, adding references to existing unreferenced material, etc.). — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21 Hold on. How do East Asian countries relate to Vietnam, a southeast Asian country? Your thesis is ridiculous, because your don't have much knowledge about Southeast Asia history. I recommend you should read some Southeast Asian history books, such as The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia or Viet Nam: A History from Earliest Times to the Present before involving in the cases, undoing my materials without reasons and replacing with unsourced contents. I am working on many Southeast Asian history drafts such as the Khmer-Thai wars, dynasties of Champa, House of Ly, House of Nguyen... For example, "the Nguyen dynasty was the ruling dynasty of kingdom of Vietnam (1802-1883), the French protectorate of Annam and the puppet state of Vietnam (1945)." that makes sense.

Saying Vietnam is "East Asia" is much like saying Thailand "East Asia."

• Kiernan, Ben (2017). Viet Nam: A History from Earliest Times to the Present. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190627300.

This MarkH21 is just confused the difference between Chinese dynasties and Southeast Asian royal houses. Laska666 (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Laska666: Comment on the content, not the contributor (please see WP:NPA). I didn't say that Vietnam was in East Asia; I commented on how the dynastic articles are structured for China and Korea, which are in East Asia. But I've struck the other since that was ambiguous.

Nobody is disputing that the Nguyen dynasty or any other dynasty was a ruling dynasty. It's about your mass restructuring of the articles to focus on the families by removing historical details about the state during each dynastic period, leaving articles like this. Wikipedia is based on consensus, so you need to engage in discussion about the issues raised about your proposed changes. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Victor Lieberman's Strange Parallels: Integration of the Mainland Southeast Asia in Global Context, c. 800-1830, Vol 1, pp. 24, 26, 29, 32 the maps show very decisively that the kingdom of Dai Viet existed until early 19th century, ie. 1802 which was replaced by the kingdom of Vietnam (1802-1883). markH21 applies the concept of "east Asian" dynastic state on a southeast Asian civilization like the Vietnamese, the Thai,... very ridiculous and nonsense, persisting against all academic historians as well. For a long time most SEA project were poorly written, and somebody wrongly applied the dynastic state concept on SEA articles. #ProjectSoutheastAsia Laska666 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I just had removed the primary and unsourced contents in articles and decided to make a draft for it. A SEA dynasty is much like a European and Delhi dynasty, which they play as the ruling royal house of the nation for a contemporary period. The Dai Viet draft article I divide its history section into classic period, early modern period and fragmentation period, using resources from history books. Laska666 (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that Dai Viet existed from the 10th to 19th centuries or that these various dynasties ruled it. It's whether the reorganization to focus each dynasty article purely on the family rather than the state when it was ruled by that dynasty is beneficial to those articles. So much referenced material also shouldn't be removed entirely, as was done at Lê dynasty. If we use an alternative approach of moving the entirety of the referenced historical details to Dai Viet, that would result in a massive bloated article subject to splitting again under WP:SIZESPLIT.

There are merits to the original structure and the possible re-organizations, but there are some issues that need to be worked out. By the way, the details added to Dai Viet and the creation/expansion of other articles on Southeast Asian history are much-appreciated. The concerns here are not about those contributions though and are centered around 1) the deletion of material from the dynasty articles and 2) whether / how they should be restructured to focus on the families rather than their periods of rule.

You removed all content from the article body, not just primary and unsourced contents. If you're drafting articles, then use the draft space (e.g. Draft:Lê dynasty) and not mainspace. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Laska666: You are edit-warring your proposed changes in while they are contested here and while there is no consensus for the proposed changes. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

What problem with you? The Dinh was a royal family, not a state. I know you are angry guy, but did you buy and read the books I recommended? No? Pseudo enough. Laska666 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21 so what stuff you had contributed to Southeast Asia topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laska666 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that you are accused of edit warring. If your ambition is to be accused of improper behaviour, such as personal attacks, as well, then go ahead. Quidquid agis, prudenter agas, et respice finem. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Laska666: I am not going to engage in your focus on (perceived) personal background, even if you refuse to discuss the concerns given above about different article structures. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have no opinion about how to format the articles about Vietnam's history. I will simply say that Korea's articles are not relevant to discuss about Vietnam's articles, simply because Vietnam's articles are not relevant to discuss about Korea's articles. Different countries have different traditions, different ways of doing, and different untold intents. In Korea, trying to shift the focus from the Joseon Kingdom to the Yi family is only POV pushing from a small set of remnants. In other countries, many other things can happen. In any case, mixing the Kingdom of England with the Crown family seems strange. Without talking of mixing the former Kingdom of France with the remnants of the Capet family. Pldx1 (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• This wouldn't be as much of an issue if it were just the above problems, but the issues with Laska's editing go far beyond just content categorization:

1 Blanking entire sections of articles without providing alternatives, or blanking sections while linking to alternative articles that do not even have the same info.
2 Creating faulty alternative articles when asked, where he couldn't even copy paste the content correctly.
3 Writing generally lackluster content with numerous grammatical errors, nearly incoherent at times, that require waves of editing to fix.
4 Listing sources in the bibliography in random order and not in alphabetical order.
5 Arguing with editors and engaging in edit warring over mundane petty points such as the name of a polity such as Dai Ngu/Dai Viet when there are multiple sources providing the info.
6 Sometimes copy pasting text from books verbatim without quotation marks.
Qiushufang (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Map of participants in World War II

Map of participants in World War II

I've made a proposal to alter the world Map of participants in World War II to change the colors used for France and its colonies. Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Restoration#Requested move 8 February 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Restoration#Requested move 8 February 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bourbon Restoration#Requested move 8 February 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bourbon Restoration#Requested move 8 February 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary

Please, can you help me with a research about Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary? Some of Stalin's former class boys or professors were devoted zarist who became during the communist his arch-enemis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.53.48.76 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

An RfC of interest

Talk:Nazi_Germany#RFC:_Poland_as_predecessor/successor_in_Nazi_Germany_infobox might be of interest to your project. This might also have further implications as to the general OR-ish presentation of predecessors and successors in infoboxes. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC on description of Southern strategy in lead of Republican Party

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican Party (United States) § RfC: Southern strategy description in the lead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for feedback: Societal guilt

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Social issue#The question of societal guilt which could use your feedback. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Rhodes blood libel

I have nominated Rhodes blood libel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 12:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome new member of Task Force Contemporary History

I would like to welcome editor @Keepcalmandchill:, who has joined the Task Force for Contemporary History. I encourage and invite any other editors here to join any task forces that correspond with their interests. if you don't see a task force for some area of interest, feel free to go right ahead and set one up. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Crusades

There is a general discussion ongoing about how to organise the aforementioned topic (which does not solely revolve about its military aspect). Being previously uninvolved, I closed two RfCs, at Talk:Crusades#Removing_"in_Europe" and at Talk:Crusading#RFC_-_what_should_this_article_be_called?, since they were pretty much about the same fundamental issue. A further discussion is ongoing at Talk:Crusades#A_proposal_and_a_possible_objection_against_it. Your participation is naturally welcome. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Human

Hi. Over the last few months the Human article has been transformed from this to its current state. This has involved a lot of citation hunting and reorganisation. This is in a push to get it to GA standard (see Talk:Human#Good article). It has been suggested that some input be sough from various wikiprojects as to further improvements. Please feel free to contribute or offer advice at this article. Regards Aircorn (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add your responses to inquiries on this talk page

Hi everyone. this is your friendly neighborhood WikiProject Lead Coordinator. I have an idea. upon looking up and down this talk page, I see a number of inquiries, notices, requests for input, etc etc, with no replies. Okay, I have an idea.

• I would like to request, that anyone who posts an inquiry here, should post at least one reply to at least one of the inquiries above.

that way, we can promote and foster the kind of dialogue that can make this a real and useful resources.

Please note, I do not claim to have universal expertise or experience with all fields of history. for that reason, i have recruited two highly-experienced editors to help out here. one is User:Iazyges, who joined us some time ago. the other is User:Gog the Mild who has just come aboard. Welcome, User:Gog the Mild! both of them have extensive experience with many core processes, where my own experience is somewhat limited in scope. so their presence can help to enrich and expand the dialogue and reach of our wikiproject.

I appreciate all who visit here to lend their thoughts, notices, and questions. Together, we can build this into a resource which will be genuinely useful to our community. I look forward to hearing all of your ideas and input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the first sentence at Uyghur genocide

There is an RfC at Talk:Uyghur genocide#RfC on the first sentence of the lead that is relevant to this WikiProject. Your participation is welcome! — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

CO-PILOTS needed!!! :-)

Note from Lead Coordinator: Co-pilots needed!!!

Hi everyone. to all our new members, all our existing members, and anyone else, welcome!!!

I am writing to let you know, we need some more folks in the cockpit for this WikiProject. (or, if you prefer, the wheelhouse, the bridge, the command center, the CIC, Mission Control, or any metaphor that you may wish)!! So if you came here to get involved, or to be active, or just because of your general interests, then this is your lucky day!! feel free to write back; if you want, we will willingly add anyone who replies here, to our main page, in any role, any position, or any project group, that you may wish.

We appreciate your help, and we thank you for being here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

new drafts , us political current history

we have a new draft article set up for the 2020s which is available for anyone to edit.; it is Draft:2020s in United States political history. and also, one for Draft:2010s in United States political history. by the way, there are similar decade overviews for the UK, at 2020s in United Kingdom political history, which has been doing quite well, and also one for the 2010s in United Kingdom political history. so feel free to let me know if you'd like to edit those drafts. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

New role for Task Forces

Below are the new task forces that have been set up here. In addition, I am also including some ideas we have for new task forces that have not been formally set up on the WikiProject page, but which anyone is free to set up any time. and if you don't see your favorite area of interest shown here, then feel free to add it as a new task force.

We hope that everyone finds this helpful. We welcome everyone's participation, input and activity here. Please feel free to any input, ideas, or information, that you may wish. Thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Task forces currently listed on main page for WikiProject History:

• Task Forces by historical era
  • Contemporary History
  • Ancient history
  • Medieval history
  • Renaissiance
  • Early modern history
  • Late modern history
• Task Forces by topic
  • Political history

IDEAS for Task Forces; not listed on main page, pending expressions of editor interest:

• By topic:
  • Mercantile or commercial history
  • Industrial history
  • Economic history
  • History of science
  • History of inventions
• By region:
  • History of Asia
  • History of Europe
• By issue, or political movement, or agenda:
  • History of political activism
  • History of women's rights
  • History of civil rights
• By major historical event
  • History of the Napoleonic Era
  • History of the French Revolution
  • History of the Industrial Revolution
• By field of thought, or intellectual and political movements
  • History of philosophy
  • History of science
  • History of communism

feel free to add any others. this is your canvas, and history is our art form. let's work together, to build up group's topics and ideas here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Replies below

• I’m interested in the following: Industrial history, History of science, History of the French Revolution, History of the Industrial Revolution, History of science, History of communism. Mccapra (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Coordinators, facilitators and volunteers

Hi everyone. The goal of this project is to serve as an active resource, where other editors can seek help or get questions answered, or get help with any topical efforts they may be working on. and also, at some point, we will try to resume various basic wikiproject tasks such as article assessment, working on group projects, etc etc

to that end, we may create some sort of list here of active volunteers, or editors, or just anyone who can occasionally take a little time to answer questions, help with various tasks and efforts, etc etc

we do have a list of members already, which includes several hundred names. however, right now we need to do more to identify who is actually still here and still able to occasionally be involved with various things that may come up.

you are welcome to add any comments, or to write any time for any reason. Please feel free to add any comments or replies. we appreciate your help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sm8900, I'm keen to participate in history of anatomy type articles. Also having been involved in something similar for WikiProject Anatomy I do also have some advice for you which I will leave on your talk page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Tom (LT), that sounds really good. I have read your ideas at my talk page, and hope to give them some thought, and discuss in the future. I'm really glad that you wrote. thanks!!! Sm8900 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Tom (LT), just writing again, re your ideas above. would you like to start your own task force here, based on your ideas and topics stated above? if so, please let me know. we can get one set up for you, on our main page. we will be glad to help with this. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Great to see your enthusiasm, but please no task force for me. I am looking to collaborate so happy if someone else is interested to collaborate. As I mentioned on that post in your talk page there is no point in all this infrastructure if nobody is doing any editing. If 10 active anatomical history editors pop up out of the woodwork then I will be certain to move that discussion to a task force subpage. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Tom (LT), okay thanks for your ideas. However, I can recruit some anatomists to come here and to help out, if to comes to that. can you please give me a better idea of what you have in mind? what do you consider to be the topic of "history of anatomy" i.e. what historical topics and events do you picture focussing on? Please feel free to let me know. thanks!!--Sm8900 (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Update to page and to my role

Hi everyone. I have updated this page to reflect that this WikiProject is not fully active. I have added data to highlight the automated features and resources on this page that are fully available to provide information; for example, "Article Alerts" remain here as an automated feature, and are highly useful to anyone visiting this page.

I will be glad to assist anyone here in any way. If I can be of assistance, please feel free to write any time. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Use whatever title you want. I think you are being overly modest, and I would support you using any title which you think helps newcomers find their way in these articles.

At quarry's query on most active WikiProjects anyone can see which English Wikipedia WikiProjects have the most engagement. Almost none of these projects have a strong hierarchy or place any obligation on anyone to do any of that organization or labor commitment in the task list you just made. Honestly, I would rather have a friendly space and a few people here to answer questions more than I would want any individual dedicating lots of time, because to me, a WikiProject is more about being able to rely on quick responses from a community than it is having someone offer scheduled tasks.

If you decide to take on a portfolio of responsibility, I suggest neglecting every commitment except being there to support others. If a project fails to respond on its talk page then it can build no community. If everything else is progressing but the talk page is not a community space, then the project will not grow. For this reason, I recommend that chief organizers have no time commitments other than being a friendly and welcoming host, then delegate anything else to new members when that community base for casual conversation is solid. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:, thank you!! bless your heart. it is always nice to be appreciated. I truly appreciate your very encouraging, uplifting, and positive note to me. I will give your ideas some thought. it is always a pleasure to exchange ideas with you, and with everyone else here. I do appreciate the ideas and input in your note, and from everyone else here as well. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:, okay, now I think I may have this page somewhat fully revised, formatted and tightened up, organizationally, format-wise, and otherwise. feel free to take a look. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:, okay, I agree with your point above. I have consolidated the roles again. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)