Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Suggestions for Project Main Page

Hi all. I have just seen a post at the Teahouse regarding this project being revitalised (not really the right venue to promote stuff, but never mind). Although I am unlikely to participate in this Project myself, I am involved in a couple of other very small Projects, and might offer you some feedback as you get to grips with running it.

First off, the Project page is overly detailed and rather offputting. I might suggest trimming it down, and collapsing sections such as the Members list. I was surprised the article quality assessment table wasn't visible on the main Project page until I got right to the bottom - this is one of the key elements that can motivate people, either by finding unassessed articles, working on important articles, or improving stubs. It's also a way to encourage editors to Add the WikiProject template to talk pages.

I recently added a WP:Hot articles chart to a couple of Projects, and I find this a very good way to visibly highlight which articles are currently being edited (or vandalised) the most. Put this right up at the top of the page, and it brightens up the inevitable walls of text with something really useful and eye catching. Finally, I suggest someone goes through the 'Articles for Improvement' section and updates the entries. Quite a few pages listed as Stubs have since been reassessed. e.g. History of East Asia (C-class). For anyone interested in that side of the Project, the tool WP:RATER is very quick and easy to install and use. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

these are good ideas, Nick Moyes. thanks for posting these here. i am going to look over the suggestions you made, and then look at ways to implement them and improve this page. I appreciate your ideas. glad that the notice at that page was able to bring you here. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Nick Moyes re your idea to collapse the Members section, this is now done.  Done. good idea! will keep you posted on other edits, as we make them here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:, re your idea to add WP:Hot articles, this is now basically  Done done, as I have submitted a request at the talk page there. I will keep you posted on this item as well. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the "result" parameter of Infobox military conflict at Mongol invasions of Vietnam

Hi! There is an RfC at Talk:Mongol invasions of Vietnam#RfC: Infobox "result" parameter about whether the "result" parameter of the {{Infobox military conflict}} at Mongol invasions of Vietnam should point to the aftermath section of the article body, say "Đại Việt victory" or list specific consequences. Any input there is appreciated! — MarkH21talk 02:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

British America 28,138 937 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Significant people in all the century pages

In this discussion, there emerged a weak consensus to remove the significant people section on the 20th century page. I would like to discuss doing the same thing for other century pages such as 19th century, 18th century, 17th century, etc. I would like to discuss here regarding whether we should do the same for the others as well. Interstellarity (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I will remove the Significant people sections in all century pages since there were no objections. Interstellarity (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Volunteering as new Coordinator

Hello all, I'm Iazyges. I mostly edit in the realm of Military History and have served as a coordinator on the WP:MILHIST project since 2016. User:Sm8900 has made me aware of his attempts to revive this wiki project, with one project being the integration of coordinator roles, seemingly similar to that of MILHIST. While MILHIST has an election structure set up, that's not exactly plausible to set up on a semi-active project. I would like to take up a position as a coordinator on this project unless there is opposition to such. Thank you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. Sounds fine to me. yes, I suggested to User:Iazyges that they join this WikiProject as a Coordinator. They have a wealth of experience, knowledge, and skills in editing historical articles, which will enable them to play a useful and valuable role in making this WikiProject more of a general resource and more of an active group center, for the whole community. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
* Approved. Okay, the period for discussion of this proposal has now elapsed. We will be adding Iazyges as a coordinator for WP:History. Congratulations!! and we are glad to have you here at the project. to all members here, you are welcome to address any comments or questions that you may have to our new coordinator. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

update on project; new coordinator, and some ideas for project

Hi everyone. Today, we are pleased to announce an editor who will be joining as a new coordinator for this WikiProject. User:Iazyges has extensive experience in topics relating to ancient history, particularly various leaders of ancient Rome. they have extensive experience with assessing articles, reviewing them, improving them, and bringing them up to GA or FA status. they will fulfil a valuable need here at this WikiProject.

I am amazed by the erudition and detail of the articles here on these areas, and I am glad that Wikipedia has editors who are able to address this important area. so we are glad to have Iazyges here, to help us increase our understanding and broaden our approach to earlier areas of history.

I have some ideas on how this project can proceed. This WikiProject is not necessarily needed to handle every historical era or topic in detail; for that, there are multiple existing history-related WikiProjects for specific topics, eras, countries, continents, cultures, etc; in the aggregate, all of these WikiProjects together already handle all of the subtopics within the broad field of history.

However, what if this WikiProject could serve as an introduction, for any editors who wish to edit in specialized areas of history, but are not sure of the ways to do so? for those editors, we can play a valuable role, in providing useful basic information on some of the methods needed to edit these topical areas. to that end, we hope to set up a few resources, tutorials, FAQs, etc etc, in the near future, to be of some help to editors who wish to learn more about the basic process for editing advanced historical topics.

User:Iazyges has broad experience as a coordinator at WP:Milhist. they have a broad knowledge and experience that will be helpful. and also, they have real experience with editing and reviewing multiple articles for ancient history topics. based on that, I have already added them as the initial member for two of our renewed Working Groups; i.e., for Article Assessment and for Article Review.

I hope everyone will find this wikiproject helpful as a resource. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, comments, or ideas, that you may have. I look forward to discussions here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900 and Iazyges: Thanks Sm8900 and Iazyges for your efforts to organize this. You both are experienced enough to know the challenges in front of you, which is that lots of people care about history but that this WikiProject is so general that many regular editors prefer to find some smaller more specific place to post for collaboration. I agree, this project could be a hub for pulling out experienced people from elsewhere to support newer users or anyone who wants an orientation. Best wishes Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

FAR for History of Baltimore City College

I have nominated History of Baltimore City College 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

New infobox for expeditions

I recently created an infobox for expeditions: {{Infobox expedition}}. I'm hoping it will be useful for some of our many articles under Category:Expeditions. (Interestingly, such a template has existed on ru wiki and wikis of a few related languages for over a decade, but AFAICT none has ever been attempted here.) As a starting point, I've added it to the following articles: Loaísa expedition, Magellan's circumnavigation, Denmark expedition.

Any feedback would be very much appreciated. Certain changes (like renaming or restructuring parameters) will be much easier to do if they're caught early on before the infobox is widely transcluded. I've started a thread on the talk page with some notes on potential additions/improvements. Colin M (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice work on the template so far. I've been bold and added it to Scott's and Amundsen's Antarctic expeditions. Allowing a caption for the route image would be nice. Also separate parameters for starting/end places, as well as times might be useful in avoiding confusing and unifying the resulting appearance a little bit. Another thought would be to allow for different modes of transportion, like sled dogs or motor sleds, for example. ---ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@ΟΥΤΙΣ: Thanks for the feedback, and for applying it to some more articles! Per your suggestions, I added parameters route_image_caption, start_location, and end_location. Do you have any thoughts on what support for different modes of transport would look like? Were you just thinking of something like a "Mode of transport" field? Colin M (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Colin M: I had thought of a field diplaying means_of_transport where people could put things like "ship", "horse", "camel", "dog sled" or "motor sled". I'm not sure if that's already too much detailed info for an infobox; but on the other hand it's pretty basic info about the character of the voyage, so you could at least offer it. My thought was that you already had "ship", but many historical expeditions were landbound.
There were also many expeditions of an armed or military character, especially in time of exploration. Perhaps you could offer a field like character meaning to display "military", "scientific" (HMS Beagle), "botanic" (HMS Bounty), "mercantile", "exploratory", "reconnaissance" and suchlike.
Regarding the number of people, I suspect that you mean 'at the outset', but an expedition can have different phases: a preparatory approach phase where you would go with many supporting people and supplies and a final approach to a landmark where you only take a small team (2 for Mt Everest summit, 5 for the south pole and so on). Could you reflect that somehow, like offering a set of fields like final_approach_start_location, final_approach_start_time, final_approach_team_size, final_approach_casualties, final_approach_target_location, final_approach_arrival_time?
Apart from leader you could also offer key_people. Thinking of people like Pigafetta without whose chronicle we would know little of Magellan's and Elcano's feats.
For completeness' sake you should also include route_image_alt, I think there's a guideline somewhere that in a perfect Wiki all images should have an alt text, too. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The motivation for the ships param was to have a place where the names of the ships involved could be listed (or the number of ships, if there are too many to enumerate), which doesn't exactly pattern match with the case for horses/sledges/etc.
It seems like the character param could be subsumed by the existing "Goals" field?
The point about multiple phases is a very good one. One possibility is just for editors to incorporate extra structure into the values for the existing basic fields. For example, in the "Crew" field you could put something like "25 (preparatory approach)<br/>5 (final approach)". I'd definitely be open to adding further parameters to accommodate this situation, but I'm unsure how much diversity there will be in how different expeditions can be logically broken down into phases.
Definitely like the idea of a key_people param. I think I will add that. (I am a little worried editors might be tempted to cram too much into the field. e.g. in the case of the Magellan voyage, there are at least 10 crew members other than Magellan/Elcano/Pigafetta who have articles, plus several other figures involved in the planning/funding/chronicling of the expedition. It would be unwieldy to list them all, but I can imagine an editor might try it anyways, or that it might lead to arguments over who was or wasn't a "key" person. But I'll just have to trust that people will be able to use it judiciously.) Colin M (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Categorising by date first mentioned

For cities whose date of establishment is not known, should they be categorised by the date of the earliest mention in historical records? Please see and comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_27#Establishments_based_on_first-mentioned_dates. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

All these articles about the Mountain Meadows Massacre...

I've recently become aware that Wikipedia has 8 different articles about various aspects of the Mountain Meadow Massacre and to me they all seem somewhat repetitious. Does Wikipedia need all of these articles? Can any of them be combined...should any of them be combined?

The articles are rendered in the Template:Mountain Meadows massacre series as:

I'm just wondering what people's thoughts are concerning these articles. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The articles that seem to be mostly somewhat repetitious of each other are Conspiracy and siege, Killings and aftermath, and Investigations and prosecutions. Would welcome any thoughts about these interrelated articles. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Twenty-Tens Decade Started

Hello editors of the WikiProject of History. I wanted to inform you guys that the WikiProject of the Twenty-Tens decade started recently. Feel free to join the new WikiProject! Elijahandskip (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alaouite dynasty#Requested move 15 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alaouite dynasty#Requested move 15 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Past, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 6 September 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

@MusikAnimal:, well, that sounds very interesting. thanks for letting us know!! ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 20:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that History of art, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 13 September 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Lloyd's Register Foundation, Heritage & Education Centre uploads 5000 documents to Wikimedia Commons

Hi WikiProject History,

The Lloyd’s Register Foundation, Heritage & Education Centre have just uploaded 5005 documents from our Ship Plan and Survey Report Collection to Wikimedia Commons that may be of interest to you. The ingestion is comprised of 16 boxes and accounts for 1082 ships across 184 unique places of build.

The documents include original handwritten correspondence from Lloyd's Register surveyors, ship plans and even a small selection of photographs. Examples include an annual report for Fiery Cross, a wreck report for Highwave, and cabin plan for the City of Simla.

In addition to the Ship Plan and Survey Report Collection, we are also beginning to ingest every edition of the Lloyd’s Register of Shipping until 1909 as well as a percentage of the First and Famous Collection, the world’s most iconic ships from within our collection. We will be sure to keep you updated on the progress of this next step.

Browse the full collection here.

We would really welcome some support with the resources and encourage you to share our documents on Wikipedia.

Thank you for all your help.LRFHEC (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC on including an image of a child wearing the Welsh Not

Hi all. There's an RfC here on including a CG image to illustrate the Welsh Not and how the device was worn by a child. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History § Women's rights by year article(s)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History § Women's rights by year article(s). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

North Africa medieval history: AfD on Almohad Expedition to Dukkala

There is currently a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almohad Expedition to Dukkala. --Bejnar (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966) 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. Hog Farm Talk 02:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asia Month

Please note that November 2021 is the annual Wikipedia Asia month!!! You can visit the wikimedia page for more information. -Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 04:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia CEE discussion

Visit the page on the CEE online meeting for details on joining and offering ideas. ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 04:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Highland Clearances

Highland Clearances has recently been tagged for neutrality and factual accuracy. The view of this editor is that neither are appropriate, as the article is extensively referenced with the works of a range of leading historians in the field (in a strict attempt to comply with WP:HISTRS). It is an article on a subject that is an emotive issue for some, with a huge number of books on it written largely for the tourist market that pander to that sentiment (not solely my view, but also that of Tom Devine). It seems to be a subject that editors in history subjects stay away from. If anyone wanted to take a look, it would be welcome. Being heavily involved in the article, I suspect I am not the person to remove the tags.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

...and I have deleted the article's C-rated quality tags, for reassessment in due course. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

History of modern literature

This article is listed as "vital importance" in history, but it's a real mess - mostly just a long list of books and dates. Someone on the talk page suggested deletion in 2007 to no reply. Does anyone here want to pick this up? Or to throw in a vote for deletion on the talk page? asilvering (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC that concerns this topic

There is an RfC there that concerns this topic. Every opinion or other input is welcome. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for History of Sheffield

I have nominated History of Sheffield 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yıva#Requested move 11 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yıva#Requested move 11 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Sarmatism (pseudohistory)

This article was just created in article space after having also been waiting for review in draft space for a few weeks. Will someone please review it to assess whether it is a neutral point of view explanation of a fringe theory that is being presented as a fringe theory? Is it adequately sourced both to sources presenting the theory and to sources criticizing the theory? Is the existence of the theory notable? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that History of music, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 3 January 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

new kind of history navbox, at Template: Early Modern Europe Suggestion

Hi everyone. this is your friendly neigborhood Coordinator for this WikiProject. I have made a new type of navbox for history topics, focusing upon one period in Europe's history. what do you think of this? feel free to comment, offer suggestions, etc. thanks!!!


---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 16:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge Requests

  You are invited to join the discussion about whether individual rulers of Turk Shahis and Nezak Huns deserve individual pages. Relevant links are:

Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A relevant meta-discussion is in progress at this thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

Hope to find collaboraters here for the Project!

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

FAR notice

I have nominated Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of discretionary sanctions for the area of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy is under discussion

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Some discussion at three articles about pseudohistorians may be of interest

WP:FTN#Eyes needed on some pseuodhistorian articles. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC on use of sources regarding "Founding Fathers"

I have posted an RfC on an editor's use of a source to declare 25+ colonial figures "Founding Fathers". To keep this neutral I won't say anything more except: Only a couple other editors have chimed in so far, and more opinions are needed to help resolve the dispute. My concern is I just discovered the changes a couple weeks ago, determined that they have stood since last October, and believe there's a possibility other sites on the internet may be echoing these claims.

The link to the RfC: Request for comment on use of sources. Any and all comments are most welcome. Allreet (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello, what do you think about an infobox for epochs? I find it hard to read so much just to get a basic idea of that time! Basically I want to have a box about basic dates and characteristics. Do you think that would work? Greetings, Tresznjewski (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I do. Sounds sensible to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
yes, I think you should proceed with that. --18:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Spelling in History of Kyiv

Please help find consensus at Talk:History of Kyiv#Consistent spelling of the title term in the text. The question is whether the article text should use the spelling from its title. —Michael Z. 16:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Village Pump proposals regarding required sourcing and presumption of notability of athletes

Your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:

  • Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
  • Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
  • Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
  • Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
  • Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
  • Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
  • Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
  • Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Help needed with author page

Hi all - I got my first page declined (Draft:Harrison Christian) due to a lack of secondary sources. I've now added five secondary sources about the subject and am wondering if that's enough. Any help appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlenechu (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Darlenechu if you add two square brackets on each side of the name of a wikipedia page it creates a link to that page (e.g. [[Draft:Harrison Christian]] creates Draft:Harrison Christian). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
A._C._Santacruz Thank you! User talk:Darlenechu

Faxian's quote on vegetarianism in ancient India

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the relevance of Faxian's quote on vegetarianism in ancient India. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Spice Trade

I've been considering making some updates to the article on the Spice Trade. I was wondering if its assessment as a B-class article is still correct, and if anyone would have some general pointers for me. Cheers, --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

First things I notice are that the lead is super long relative to the body, and the article doesn't really discuss the spice trade after about 1600, which seems like a major omission. No mention of the East India Company? No discussion of the modern spice trade? There are also a few relevant cleanup tags, and the prose could do with a thorough copyedit. It's not the worst article, but there's plenty to improve! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Guess it's a good thing that most of my knowledge regarding the spice trade is related to the East India Company. I'll get to work on a section for that sometime soon. --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Just want to say, it is terrific to see this interesting topic and this joint editing effort being discussed here. please feel free to keep us posted!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I am happy to report that i’ve finally picked up the work, and am currently assessing and reevaluating the article as it stands now. I just posted an edit marking all the pieces of text requiring citations with the proper markers, and will hopefully be rewriting the lead soon as i don’t think it’s up to standard. I’ll be sure to keep you all up to date! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone up for summarising Ukraine?

As discussed here the history section of Ukraine needs to be shortened, which is obviously a tough job so I did not volunteer. Maybe you? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1:, I appreciate your note and your heads-up. currently, I am getting more involved with the main article for the 2022 invasion; so I can try to take a look at the history section in the entry for Ukraine at some point, as well. anyone else here is welcome to do so, as well. also, please feel free to use this section to discuss further efforts and editing in this area, if you wish. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine#History is 75% the length of History of Ukraine, so I suspect there's a lot of material that could be shifted to more appropriate articles. CMD (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

cleanup of the members list

I've implemented User:Yapperbot/Pruner/use on Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Outreach/Participants as editors will start and stop. Generally, I'm against having a members list, at all, but this way we won't have an out-dated list. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, I think that sounds fine. I appreciate you letting all of us here know about that. what would be some of the general parameters and criteria that you will use in doing this cleanup? I am open to any approach at all on this; I simply would like to clarify. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@Sm8900: The bot runs every Monday and is currently set to remove editors who haven't edited for six months, as well as indefinitely blocked editors. Last Monday it cleaned up 136 inactive editors and another 18 blocked editors, while also correcting 17 editors who had since renamed themselves. The bot also delivered notices to those inactive editors should they return to editing and want to re-add themselves. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
that sounds great. thanks for your help with that. great work! Sm8900 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Continental Association

There is a Request for Comments active at Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States on whether signers of the Continental Association should be considered Founding Fathers. Participation in the RFC is invited. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Invite to join task force WP:CONTEMPORARY

I would like to invite any interested editors here to join the task force for Contemporary History. One of our core goals is to highlight and promote the coverage of contemporary history as its own distinct area here at Wikipedia.

We differ from a simple effort to cover current events, in that we seek to provide the editing community with resources that would allow it to provide broad and comprehensive coverage of articles on contemporary history as a broad topical field, rather than simply on individual current events as they may occur.

to that end, we have set up articles such as 2020s in political history, which allow the whole editing community to adopt a broad scope in keeping wikipedia updated with broad historical trends, topics and events, as they occur, but also as they become relevant to the field of history overall. I hope that sounds helpful and worthwhile to you. you are welcome to join us in any way, or to offer any input or ideas that you may wish. we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

New stub Everything's Gonna Be All White created

I've created a new stub called Everything's Gonna Be All White. I've added 9 references to the article and have added the infobox as well as the overview, cast, episodes and reception sections, but the article still needs some work like expanding and the episode list reformatted to the correct format. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation

There is a dispute over whether this article violates NPOV, and whether it reflects the mainstream scholarly opinion. It could use more attention by editors with experience editing historical articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

CATEGORY: PSEUDOHISTORY

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon, over whether the article in question should be in the category Pseudohistory, that may be of interest to watchers of this page. JimKaatFan (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan has an RFC

Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan 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. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Some new resources for current history

Hi. I have begun to set up some new resources for covering current history. I have set up a new category tree for Category:Decade overviews. Additonally, I have modified some sections of two entries for contemporary history, to add some general sections that will be structured chronologically. you can view these articles at 2020s in political history, and 2020s in United States political history. I hope to build upon these, as time goes on. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon

There is a RfC at Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon § RfC on category inclusion/exclusion as to whether Historicity of the Book of Mormon should to be included in the "pseudohistory" category. ––FormalDude talk 06:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I am the Lead Coordinator here at WP:HIST. I would like to form a task force for "Best Practices in History", which would be a task force to include and to benefit multiple WikiProjects that relate to history topics specifically. any interest? I'd like to get this off the ground if possible. please let me know. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

it is always good to see your ideas here. thanks for this notice!! Sm8900 (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Standardization of US Presidency timelines

The formatting of the US presidency timelines is inconsistent. Some of the lists are all on a single page (Harding), some are split by year (Obama), and Trump and Biden are split by quarter. The latter two are also using a table format where every single day has its own row. It's clear that the lists get more and more granular as they get more recent in a dramatic example of WP:RECENTISM. Has there been any discussion of standardizing this series of articles? If not, how would such a process take place? I was thinking about creating some for the presidents that don't have them, but it looks like this whole series needs work. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks, but actually, this is precisely where different approaches might be beneficial, based on the evolution of the approach to capturing history, and encompassing historical detail and information, as it occurs. we have a task force here for Contemporary History, which views this as its own notable area of history.
the use of different approaches, whether based on recent eras or some other basis, will actually help Wikipedia to capture a broader amount of facts and information, for use in later article research, and also to expand our usefulness as an encyclopedic resource, on these topics. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
also, since this is one of the new types of contemporary history articles that I did not originate, I would be fully inclined to let that type of quarterly article stand. you are correct to say that it seems increasingly "granular." however since it did emerge on its own, from the general editing community, it seems valid to continue in that form. and basically, going forward, one of the best things Wikipedia can do is to serve more and more as a respository for information on current history, as it is happening.
there are basically no drawbacks to doing so; since we do already have articles for every major sitcom, every major video game, every movie, every commerical musical recording, etc etc..... prodividng individual articles for time periods within a presidency, seems fine, based on the wide scope that is utilized in order to include articles on many, many diverse topics here.
by the way, @Thebiguglyalien:, I do appreciate your comments on this topics, and your actions in opening this area for discussion here on this page. I wellcome any other input you may have. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Since I made that initial post, I reworked the Timeline of the Warren G. Harding presidency by searching through newspaper records in the Library of Congress. I came up with hundreds of entries, and now most of them link to a contemporary paper in the LoC archive. I just want a second opinion, do you think this is a good strategy to build up a timeline like this? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien, yes, actually I think that sounds fine. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Value of 250,000 rubles during the Russian Revolution

Talk:Nestor Makhno#Bank expropriation

Hello! Looking for some assistance contextualizing the size/importance of a 250,000-ruble bank expropriation during the Ukrainian War of Independence/Russian Revolution. Discussion linked above. czar 02:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Czar Bezdany raid has a 1908 value, but I am not sure what it is based on, and I'd also be interested in learning if there is a tool for historical conversion we could use. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Little help with Dura-Europos needed

Hi all! I'm not a regular editor of historical articles, though nearly half a year ago I tried to rewrite Dura-Europos. It came from this to its current shape, and I got stucked on further improvement. It would be great it somebody knowledgeable in that period can look through, "History" section really needs attention. I don't know why Dura-Europos and all related articles were in such a bad shape, this 'Pompeii of the desert' is really interesting and important from what I've read during my work on it. Artem.G (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

thanks for your note! @Vami IV: can probably help you with this somewhat. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I can't (I can hardly tell my Caesars apart from my Constantines), but perhaps Caeciliusinhorto (talk) and Ealdgyth (talk) can. You might also inquire Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, will do! Artem.G (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Article created for social crisis

Just created article for Social crisis. if the Lead Coordinator role for WikiProject History has any organic roles or responsiblities, this is probably one of them. ok, carry on. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Confederate Memorial Day

I've added some context to the Confederate Memorial Day article, along with sources, as it's been well-established by historians that the holiday was originally promoted during the Jim Crow era to reinforce white supremacy, and revived during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s (much like the concurrent rise of Confederate monuments). There's one editor who is insisting on removing this sourced material. I would prefer some editors get involved before it gets too ugly, because I have some experience with editors who want to removed what they consider "negative" items from an article, and I think a third or fourth party might be helpful here. Wes sideman (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Merging "by period" and "by date" container categories, or not?

Please check this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Baháʼí Faith Featured article review

User:Nutez has nominated Baháʼí Faith 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) 22:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Jazz Age, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 18 July 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

History of smallpox - input needed

Your input would be appreciated in the debate on Talk:History of smallpox. The article, the bulk of which was written before 2013, suffers from old age. A lot of new results published in 2016 and later are not reflected at all. Thanks for your help! Renerpho (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Deportation von Juden aus Deutschland

I wonder if anybody can tell me if the German wikipedia at Deportation von Juden aus Deutschland [de] is already covered on Wikipedia. I've had a look for it, and while the coverage comprehensive, I can't seem to find it. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 10:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Pgallert Thinker78 (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
This does not seem to have an article here, and mass deportations are under-reported both at The Holocaust and History of the Jews in Germany. If you want to provide some content I'd suggest to first add coverage to those main articles, and only once it becomes too bulky, fork it out into a separate article. Hope that helps, Pgallert (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Buidhe: I don't know if you're able/prepared to add anything here? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The Holocaust in Germany is where this information would go. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

New channel in Discord

It would be very convenient to have new channel "wphistory" in the discord server. Or even a new server entirely dedicated to history. I ask you to express your opinion on this proposal. Dintre (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you have a good idea, but you are much more likely to get actual activity, if you simply open a new subchannel, on the existing Discord channel for wikipedia as a whole. i hope that my reply is helpful. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Dintre:, could you please click the link below, and set up an account at the new forums that are based on Discourse? I'll be glad if we could work together there, to create a brand new channel or category, devoted to WP Hist! Let me know. Thanks: 

https://forum.movement-strategy.org/invites/EKHU6eVqeV Sm8900 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hoysala Empire Featured article review

I have nominated Hoysala Empire 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) 02:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Input needed Louis VIII

If someone has the time, interest, and knowledge it would be great if they can provide input in the thread "Excommunicated by the pope?" in the talk page of the article Louis VIII of France. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) Originally added 15:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Added again Thinker78 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Input needed Louis X

If someone has the time and interest it would be great if they can provide input in the thread Talk:Louis X of France#First sentence. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC about Elizabeth II, orders, decorations and medals

Hello, we need your input at this RFC. -- GoodDay (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Engineering Historical Memory

I'm a volunteer with the AfC help desk. A draft for a research tool called Engineering Historical Memory was rejected and I'm trying to help the (connected) editor get the article accepted. The not yet resubmitted version sits at Draft:Engineering Historical Memory (EHM). I can't find any decent sources to show notability, but the project looks interesting, and utilizes Wikipedia. If anything, I thought this group would be interested in checking it out to see the split screen effect. It's apparently best with a Chrome browser. See the official web site. TechnoTalk (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback requested about Consulat décennal

Your feedback would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France#Consulat décennal, about whether the term "Consulat décennal" is still used by historians, in connection with a portion of the post-Revolutionary French Consulate period. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lorraine cycle#Requested move 13 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lorraine cycle#Requested move 13 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Swedish emigration to the United States

User:Buidhe has nominated Swedish emigration to the United States for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Post Classical History

Hello everyone I have been asking for reviews for four years, for Post Classcal History. Come see if it deserves a B rating at least! Please come take a look, any feedback is appreciated. Sunriseshore (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion at Gautama Buddha

There is an active page move discussion at Talk:Gautama Buddha about moving the page Gautama Buddha to The Buddha. This is of particular relevance to this project as it pertains to a religious figure of significant global standing and wide-ranging impact in the history of religion, philosophy, spirituality and mysticism. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Expansion needed at Modern era

Hi all! Back in 2009, the article for Modern era was redirected to human history without discussion. Recently, editors at Talk:Early modern period noticed that this had taken place and decided to restore the Modern era article. However, while an article now exists on the modern era, it went unedited for a 13-year period and consequently is in need of editing and expansion. I wanted to call this to the project's attention in case anyone was interested in contributing. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Origin of Songket

Hi all. There is a discussion at Talk:Songket about the origin of Songket. Your input on that discussion is appreciated. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Human history#Requested move 16 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Human history#Requested move 16 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Page split discussion at Talk:History of Israel#Proposed split of modern history

This is a page split discussion over a history page has a 144kB readable prose size. Input from history project members would be appreciated. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Editors here may be interested in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#musicandhistory.com. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Buddha

The page which had been Gautama Buddha was unsuccessfully proposed for a change to Siddhartha Gautama, then successfully changed to The Buddha, and is now being proposed for a change to Buddha. Your input and expertise would be most welcome at: Talk:The_Buddha#Requested_move_25_November_2022 Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Human history, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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 December 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Medieval civilizations

The present concensus recognizes only one civilization for the Middle Ages (the Islamic). Since one page is not sufficient for category, the category for medieval civilizations was deleted. Who ever believes that other civilizations existed in the Middle Ages is invited to Category talk:Civilizations by time.--Maxaxa (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Notice of RfC at WikiProject Years

There is an ongoing Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years that may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Input requested

Hi. Your input is welcome in the thread Talk:World War II#Seeking consensus to implement change in lead sentence. Cheers! --Thinker78 (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

New or old placenames

In an article on an historic event, should the article use the place names of the time of that event, or should they be translated (with all the risk of occasional error) into the name of the place now? If sources use the old place name, should that be modernised?

One could even be concerned that this destroys the principle of verifiability, as if all the place names have been changed from those used in sources, how can anyone check the accuracy of an article.

I am sure that one would still use Constantinople, Byzantium or Istanbul as appropriate. Why, then, is it appropriate to change, for instance Foochow to Fuzhou?

Please may I have some guidance on this as we have one user carrying out multiple changes of Chinese old place names to their modern equivalent. (See [1]) I would guess that this is not a new problem. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired and I discussed this over at my talk page; I think it was mostly just a misunderstanding and things have been cleared up now. TL;DR: I’m aware that historical place names are and should be used in articles pertaining to the time period when that name was in use. Wikipedia’s policy on Chinese romanization could be seen as a bit of an exception to this rule, for reasons I explained on my talk page. ThoughtIdRetired does make a good point, though, that when quotations from English primary sources are used in an article, any obsolete romanizations present in those quotations should be clarified to the reader in some way or another. I’ll be looking back through my recent edits to add those clarifications where necessary. SilverStar54 (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We work in similar fields, and I came across ThoughtIdRetired and SilverStar54's discussion on the latter's talk page as I was concerned about the effect on verifiability of the bare replacement of the long-familiar forms of Chinese place names in articles on historical events. After a dead-end or two, I found what seems to be relevant guidance at MOS:GEO: "In cases where such a historical name is used, it should be followed by the modern name in round brackets (parentheses) on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article." Although that is couched in terms of changes of name, I think it equally appropriate for changes in latinisation, and would, for example, appear as "Foochow (Fuzhou)". I amended a couple of articles accordingly, but will pause now to see where this discussion goes. Or should it be at MOS:GEO? Davidships (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I had always understood that as a tertiary source Wikipedia followed the consensus of modern RSs. Hence in a recent series of FAs I had Spain, Gaul, Italy and Cisalpine Gaul; with two of them explained in brackets at first mention - cus that's what the sources do. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
That seems right, but in the circumstances I am speaking of, the RSs are not usually "modern" (as described here). Davidships (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Davidships I think the deciding factor here is whether the specific old romanization of a term is still used in modern historical literature. In a small number of cases, the old romanization of a name have been "long-familiar" enough to survive the overall shift to pinyin. But these cases are extremely few, and it should not be taken for granted that just because all of the English sources written at the time agree on a romanization that this is still widely in use today.
Besides the general policy on Chinese romanization, WP:NCGN discusses this issue more precisely:

"Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods. Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use."

It continues later:

"In some cases it is not the local name but the spelling of the name in English that has changed over time. For example, Nanjing, as the contemporary pinyin spelling, is used for the name of the article rather than Nanking. However, the article on the Treaty of Nanking spells the city as was customary in 1842, because modern English scholarship still does."

Note that this doesn't apply to all romanizations of Chinese terms in a given article, just the specific events/people/etc that are still exceptionally famous under their Wade-Giles/postal/etc names.
So it's important to look to modern English scholarship for guidance. Using the Great Tea Race of 1866 as an example, I spent some time finding academic sources on trade in 1860s China published in the last few decades. I found seven books that used pinyin ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) and two that used obsolete romanization systems ([9], [10]). To check that this wasn't confirmation bias, I searched Google Scholar for works published since 2000 with the keywords "Fuzhou 1866" and "Foochow 1866". There were more than three times as many results for "Fuzhou 1866" than "Foochow 1866". Even if you push the earliest publication date back to 1970 (i.e., before pinyin was even around), the total results for "Fuzhou 1866" still outnumber "Foochow 1866" by 2.5 times. Ngram paints a similar picture. For geographic place names, it seems pretty clear to me that the modern scholarly consensus is to use pinyin.
Therefore, in regards to verifiability, using Wade-Giles or postal throughout an article would create as many problems as it would solve. If you're still concerned about readers getting confused when they go to check sources, there are lots of ways to mention/clarify the older romanizations that don't involve using them throughout the article.
SilverStar54 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Just picking up on the date of sources for Great Tea Race of 1866, the main and most authoritative sources are books written some while ago: Basil Lubbock, The China Clippers written in 1914 and reprinted in 1981; David MacGregor, The Tea Clippers, Their History and Development 1833–1875, written 1983. Many of the other references are illustrative contemporary newspaper reports (in that they illustrate points made in the books). McGregor is still the unsurpassed source for this sort of maritime history. (The study of trade is a broader subject, but MacGregor may well be the person who has delved deepest into the records of shipping companies, for instance in his China Bird. He took the view than no-one could judge exactly how much profit tea clippers made – we know their gross receipts but not actual costs – and I have not seen anything that contradicts that view.) Most of the new work in maritime history that goes beyond his research tends to be based on maritime archaeology. Perhaps some undiscovered diary or similar account may come to light, but the probability is low.
Hence any reader who looks at Wikipedia in conjunction with sources will need to be able to relate whatever place name is in the article with those in their source. Since old newspapers are now so accessible, those sources may well be contemporary. I have no particular preference on how it is done, but it should be an accessible translation between contemporary and modern usage. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
All of that is well understood SilverStar54, and I am not attempting to turn back any clock, or obscure the pinyin names. But, for me, you are answering the wrong question. In the edits which concern me, you removed completely all mention of the names actually used in the sources. I think that that is unhelpful to the reader and contrary to WP:V principles, so consequently suggested using the style "Foochow (Fuzhou)" - or "Fuzhou (Foochow)" if preferred - along MOS lines; obviously the connection has to be made only once in an article (or per section in some long list articles that are not intended to be read through). So please say whether you actually object to using this approach. Davidships (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
@Davidships I apologize for misinterpreting what you said. To be crystal clear, I don't object to "Fuzhou (Foochow)", and I agree that my original edits were too hasty. I plan to go back and add clarifications where they seem necessary (i.e., articles that cite a large number of older sources). This is what I meant when I said "ThoughtIdRetired does make a good point, though, that when quotations from English primary sources are used in an article, any obsolete romanizations present in those quotations should be clarified to the reader in some way or another. I’ll be looking back through my recent edits to add those clarifications where necessary." Is this what you meant?
What I was objecting to was using older romanizations throughout the article ("Foochow (Fuzhou)"). SilverStar54 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you - that's fine by me. I'll share the task, and do those that are on my watchlist. Davidships (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for help at List of folk heroes

Hello! I recently came across List of folk heroes, which had been trashed by a user who removed all references, categories, internal formatting, etc. and replaced it with an indiscriminate and unsourced list of random historical figures, fictional characters, and entirely made up hoax characters. I reverted it to the last stable version with references, only to find that this version is still sorely lacking in referencing and contains many kings and such. I have no idea how to tell if these people are folk heroes or not unless their article literally says "folk hero" in it. Therefore, I'm here to ask for help!

Its linked WikiProjects are WikiProject Folklore, which is inactive, and WikiProject lists, which has a rather inactive talk page. If this isn't the right WikiProject, please let me know where I should go. Thank you! Blue Edits (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The list is that bad that I am a little surprised to find it still exists. The "definition" at the top is a non-definition and virtually all of those on the list are not folk heroes. I don't see why someone should be in the list unless there is a RS which uses the phrase "folk hero" or something very similar. We're a tertiary source, our deciding someone is a folk hero without a solid cite to back this is just OR. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Would it be extreme to WP:TNT it at AfD? Even if the OR editor leaves it alone it's hardly in a verifiable state. Also, the page history has been flooded and is essentially unusable. Blue Edits (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for user contribution check

Please kindly check contributions of BasedHistorian PHD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I reverted some edits yesterday, but not sure about standing ones. Any expertise is welcome. Thanks, A09 (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@A09 I checked a sample of the contributions and seem legit, although the editor lacks proper communication skills. I think the block was premature and not proportional. Thinker78 (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible collaboration event

I'm making a post here to see how much interest there is in organizing a collaboration event. Things like this have been helpful for other WikiProjects to encourage focused activity and to grow their active editor base. There are a lot of ways that something like this can be done, but I'm thinking something simple: invite users to contribute to topics from a certain time period and add them to the list. Women in Red has events like this every month, and it seems to work pretty well. Any thoughts? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

sounds terrific. feel free to discuss here, and to proceed if you wish! Sm8900 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments for Renaissance

Hello, I have opened comments for Renaissance on the talk page that identifies problems with the article. If these receives no comments by monday then I will open a GAR for it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Please review ratings

I have seen an editor inappropriately marking articles as being of top importance to all WikiProjects, including this one. Please consider reviewing Category:Top-importance history articles and adjusting its contents as you see fit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography of American history

This article appears to be part of this project, but your banner is not on the talk page

(As an aside, the list appears to a history of the US since the colonization by European settlers in the 15th century. A more meaningful name may be useful) 76.14.122.5 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles that are missing talk pages. I've created a talk page with relevant banners. And I do think there should be a more limited selection on what's included given that it's about the history of the United States. It should probably be limited to nothing before the American Revolution and should stick with national-level coverage. The appropriate place to suggest such a limitation would be on its talk page, which I think someone has conveniently just created. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

RM: changing Iraqi conflict (2003–present) → Iraqi conflict (2003–2017)

Please see here: Talk:Iraqi_conflict_(2003–present)#Requested_move_6_March_2023 FOARP (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rschen7754 19:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Isabella II discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:Isabella II of Spain#Spain's only queen regnant. You are welcome joining it.--Thinker78 (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Deportations during the Great Depression" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Deportations during the Great Depression has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 11 § Deportations during the Great Depression until a consensus is reached. 64.229.90.172 (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This article needs A LOT of work

the article Stresa Front needs to be re-written and re-sourced, the sources it has are dubious and entire sections are unsourced, the article is also written in a weird third person style following Mussolini, like a novel. the article is also framed weirdly as pro-Mussolini. I am woefully underskilled to re-write and research a whole article, so I am requesting that you fine Wikiproject editors check it out. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Clone commando sev I'd suggest leaving a note about your concerns on the article's talk page. Its certainly possible that someone here will take a look, though I wouldn't necessarily count on it :) So like a lot of issues, good to identify it, but it might be a while before it can get resolved. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I'm make talk page post. (sorry for late reply) Clone commando sev (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion opened regarding early Chinese aristocrats

There is a proposal that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject to make changes to how surnames of early Chinese figures are defined in a particular infobox at Talk:Chinese surname#Proposal to make changes to a protected template regarding Chinese surnames. Casting a wide net after no interest from more targeted WikiProjects. Folly Mox (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Biledulgerid

Eh... there's a stub article on this imaginary place that someone knowledgeable in NW Africa really should clean up if they can spare the time. We shouldn't completely delete it since it does show up on many many period maps, but we should make it clear that it wasn't a real thing, who the actual people in the area were, and what the actual states were during the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s when Europeans just handwaved the region with this mangled Arabic name. — LlywelynII 14:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

2022 Peruvian political crisis move discussion

An editor has requested for 2022 Peruvian political crisis to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with 2022 Peruvian political crisis, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).--WMrapids (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Operation Gideon (2020) move discussion

An editor has requested for Operation Gideon (2020) to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Operation Gideon (2020), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). WMrapids (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt move discussion

An editor has requested for 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). WMrapids (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Advice on naming of a historical period

For Namibia there is a naming issue with its pre-colonial period, outlined on Talk:History of Namibia#Pre-colonial name?. I haven't got any response yet. Someone here like to help? Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of Singapore

History of Singapore has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Habsburg monarchy has an RFC

Habsburg monarchy 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. User23242343 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@User23242343, thanks for letting us know! I will take a look, and may add some input if I have something useful to add. I hope other WikiProject members here will take a look at this RFC as well. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Galley – length of article

I am in some discussion with the major contributor to Galley about the length of the article. To me, the article seems over-long and suffers because of it. There is discussion at Talk:Galley#Length of article. This is where you will find my suggestion of splitting the article along the natural division: (a) galleys of the classical and pre-history periods (b) medieval and post-medieval galleys.

Please would editors take a look and express an opinion. Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

JFK Assassination Featured Article Candidacy

If anyone is interested, the Assassination of John F. Kennedy has been nominated for Featured Article promotion. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, ~ HAL333 18:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Uranium mining in the Bancroft area

Uranium mining in the Bancroft area has been nominated for Featured Article status. If you are interested to review the article, that would be helpful, as it needs at least one more review to avoid timing out.

Link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uranium mining in the Bancroft area/archive1 CT55555(talk) 12:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for peer review of Victorian era

I've been working on the article about the Victorian era a great deal this year and have recently got it to good article status. I'm hopping to get it to featured article status over the next few months which would be my first featured article. What kind of changes do you think would be needed to get their?

Link to peer review page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Victorian era/archive1 Llewee (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft: Requested move

There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Kosovo

Several nationalistic editors have added irrelevant petty lords as chief commanders in the infobox based on their personal notion that just participating in the battle is enough to include them. Not to mention that they rammed it by brute force and what seems to be tag teaming. Considering that the battle is of chief importance for Serbian history, adding some local Albanians in the infobox stinks of nationalistic editing. Because the subjects attracts a small number of editors, they might get away with it. It's so strange. I have no permission to act. Please help Wikipedia to get this mess cleaned. 178.220.230.153 (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Renaissance

Renaissance has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

An RfC of interest

An RfC of possible interest to this WikiProject can be found here.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Any of youse know somethin' about Byzanters?

Talk:Menologem currently has a very specific but gaping hole in its content about either how other officials were authorized to use them or how no other officials were ever authorized to use them. — LlywelynII 06:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:National identity#Requested move 12 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National identity#Requested move 12 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

LGBT in the Ottoman Empire

Hi – this seems like a very promising article on a notable subject. Not new as such, but could do with some copyedits from members of this Wikiproject if anyone is interested. Thanks 😊 GnocchiFan (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Join Request

May I please join? Thanks, Cheaha Summit (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Cheaha Summit, you don't need permission to join. Just about everything on Wikipedia is open to everyone. You can add your username to Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Outreach/Participants if you want. Welcome! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Article in Need of Attention: Baltimore Plot

Hi there. I do not know if there is a more appropriate area in this WikiProject for this but I want to call attention to the article Baltimore Plot, which could use the help of this project. The article covers what seems to be a mildly important historical event but suffers from a lack of sources and general need of expansion and maintenance. Please let me know if there is somewhere more appropriate for this request. Thanks, -- Lenny Marks (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, as I definitely have heard of this plot myself, and will look through some sources to see if I can improve it. I just looked and there's a chapter about it in Lauren R. Silberman's Wicked Baltimore: Charm City Sin and Scandal which I happen to have a hard copy of. Historyday01 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Happy editing! -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Sure, its my pleasure. Historyday01 (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Just finished adding a bunch of sources now, and it is at a much better place now. The only section now, that needs work is the "In popular culture" section. Historyday01 (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
As a further update, the popular culture section is done. I also updated the Kate Warne and Hattie Lawton articles while I was at it, as well. Historyday01 (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at : Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#2020 Venezuelan coup attempt round III

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#2020 Venezuelan coup attempt round III that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. WMrapids (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Antebellum South, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 11 September 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

1953 Korean dam bombing a war crime?

Anyone who is historian-minded want to evaluate where the US bombing of Korean dams in WWII is a war crime? Then, take a look at: Talk:United States war crimes#why deletion of Korean dam bombing? – ishwar  (speak) 08:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Heads of government

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 10#Category:Assassinated heads of government that includes historical relevance of the concept of head of government, whether viziers were heads of government, among other things. Your input is welcome. Regards, --Thinker78 (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Xin Zhang

Does the subject of this draft satisfy academic notability? Should this draft be accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Modern era#Requested move 3 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Modern era#Requested move 3 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 17:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Expulsion act

This seems like an important and interesting subject. Could I have some help and input on how to move forward with it? FloridaArmy (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Wording in Template:Eastern Bloc sidebar

There is a discussion on "Allied states" vs "Allied and satellite states" terminology in Template_talk:Eastern_Bloc_sidebar#Allied vs satellite states. More input would be welcome. -- Mindaur (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Nakba denial

I have created a page on the subject of Nakba denial - a topic of some weight in literature on the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I have barely scratched the surface of the available source, having prioritized the most readily accessible ones. There may very well be some gaping gaps, not least in that I don't have access to any of the best Ilan Pappé material, so haven't been able to directly quote him. More eyes welcome. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

History of the United States

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#History of the United States articles that may be of interest to this project. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Power (social and political), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 23 October 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Please see my latest post at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Combining_sections_of_Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/History_and_Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Politicians_and_leaders

I will need help with updating the list. Please see my latest post for more details. Interstellarity (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire Featured article review

I have nominated Byzantine Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There is a merge proposal to merge The United States and the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars into History of the United States (1789–1849). The discussion is in a deadlock due to lack of input. The writer of the first article opposes the merge while I, as proposer, support the merge. More input is needed and appreciated. The Banner talk 22:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Since when do we include lolcal small-time players side by side to countries participating in a battle (infobox)?

I don't get it. Mind you, I did not edit a long time, but have things changed and I missed the memo? I asked the same question on the TP, please help with this issue. 178.220.230.153 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide whether a noble family is a "small-time player". AlexBachmann (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dynasties in Chinese history#Requested move 27 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dynasties in Chinese history#Requested move 27 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on WP:GEOLAND and local history

Hello, there is a RfC regarding notability guideline for minor/rural places at this link. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Now withdrawn. 172.58.232.38 (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

United States involvement in regime change in Latin America has an RFC

United States involvement in regime change in Latin America 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. WMrapids (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

thanks for letting us know! Sm8900 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Red Cliffs to FAR

I have nominated Battle of Red Cliffs for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Peer review of LGBT in the Ottoman Empire

Hi everyone - just letting this WikiProject know that a Peer Review of LGBT in the Ottoman Empire (with the intention of improving this to Good Article status) is currently under way. If anyone has anything to add to the article / review, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! GnocchiFan (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion at Guayana Esequiba

An editor has requested that Guayana Esequiba be moved to Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. --WMrapids (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of private equity and venture capital

History of private equity and venture capital has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Merge_discussion

There is a requested merge discussion at Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Merge_discussion that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Dan the Animator 22:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion for 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis

An editor has requested that 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis be moved to 2023 Guyana–Venezuela crisis, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.--WMrapids (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Need help regarding categorization of fictional characters

I need help scouring through Category:Fictional characters by period in order to extend Category:Fictional characters by period as far back as possibly the 4th millennium BC, which would mirror the calendar-date categories in Category:Historical fiction by period of setting and Category:Works about the future; we are going no deeper than the century level, similar to Category:People by century. I've done all of the future time periods from the 25th century onward, and other users have covered the 16th through 24th centuries and the 6th millennium.

I'm also considering combining all of the setting-by-calendar-date categories into a new category, which should smooth navigation from the past to the future. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

My work thus far can be seen at User:LaundryPizza03/Fictional characters by period; this does not include a few new pages I've added to the preexisting 16th–24th centuries, as well as the 6th millennium. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft

Please review my draft Draft:Amaru Topa Inca Encyclopédisme (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:History of the Russian Federation#Requested move 25 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:History of the Russian Federation#Requested move 25 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – Hilst [talk] 16:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hoysala Empire#Requested move 7 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hoysala Empire#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:History (American TV network)#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:History (American TV network)#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Azerbaijani-Mongolian cultural relations#Requested move 23 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Azerbaijani-Mongolian cultural relations#Requested move 23 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fools revolt#Requested move 12 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fools revolt#Requested move 12 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

FYI portal:World War II has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of The Simpsons

History of The Simpsons has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to Collaborate on the Historically Rich Portal Fernández Concha Article

Dear WikiProject History Enthusiasts,

I'm reaching out to this knowledgeable community with a fascinating challenge and opportunity: the Portal Fernández Concha article. This isn't just any building; it's a portal (pun intended) to a rich tapestry of historical events, societal changes, and noteworthy moments that have left indelible marks on the cultural and historical landscape.

Why Your Expertise is Crucial:

  1. Deep Historical Layers: Portal Fernández Concha is more than an architectural landmark; it's a living history book with chapters spanning from its inception to its role in modern society. Each era has left its imprint, making it a multidimensional subject ripe for exploration.
  2. Notable Events: The Portal has been the backdrop for significant events that have resonated beyond its physical confines, influencing public discourse, legislation, and even national identity. These events provide a unique lens through which to examine broader historical trends and shifts.
  3. Interdisciplinary Significance: The history of Portal Fernández Concha intersects with various disciplines, from architecture and urban development to social movements and public policy. This interconnectivity offers a rich field for historical analysis and storytelling.
  4. Potential for Comprehensive Coverage: With your help, we can ensure the article reflects the Portal's full historical context, capturing not just dates and events but the underlying narratives that tell the story of a society in flux.
  5. Collaborative Storytelling: This is an opportunity to engage in collaborative storytelling, piecing together the Portal's history from diverse sources and perspectives to create a comprehensive and engaging narrative.

What I'm Hoping for From This Collaboration:

  • Filling Historical Gaps: Assistance in identifying and filling gaps in the Portal's historical narrative, ensuring a comprehensive and accurate account.
  • Contextualizing Events: Help in contextualizing historical events within broader social, political, and cultural movements, providing readers with a deeper understanding of their significance.
  • Ensuring Historical Accuracy: Your expertise in historical research and analysis will be invaluable in verifying the accuracy of events and dates, ensuring the article meets the highest standards of historical scholarship.
  • Expanding the Narrative: Contributions that expand the narrative beyond the Portal itself, exploring its impact on and reflection of societal changes and historical moments.

This is more than just a call for edits; it's an invitation to be part of a collaborative effort to craft a piece of historical scholarship that will inform and engage readers for years to come. I believe that together, we can bring the rich history of Portal Fernández Concha to life in a way that honors its past and enlightens its future.

Thank you for considering this collaboration. I eagerly await your insights, contributions, and the rich historical tapestry we can weave together.

Best regards, TraceySear840 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Catholic Church

Catholic Church has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal at History of the United States (1789–1849)

There is a split discussion at Talk:History of the United States (1789–1849)#Proposal to split (1789–1815) and (1815–1849). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mughal–Maratha Wars#Requested move 8 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mughal–Maratha Wars#Requested move 8 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Imperial[AFCND] 14:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Indian campaigns of Muhammad of Ghor#Requested move 11 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Indian campaigns of Muhammad of Ghor#Requested move 11 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Imperial[AFCND] 14:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:History of encyclopedias#Requested move 29 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:History of encyclopedias#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Internment of Japanese Americans - Article name and terminology used in article text

Despite the consensus seeming to be in favour of keeping "internment" as the title of Internment of Japanese Americans, the article's text now solely uses the term "incarceration". Consistency between the two would be preferred, especially since the change to the article's text seems to have been made recently without discussion. Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem would appear to be a lack of awareness of the editors of the dictionary definition of internment. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Systematic distortion of historical articles

Dear All,

Please check urgently this post on reddit detailing how a few Hungarian editors are systematically rewriting articles on Romanian history. It needs intervention and professional editors to correct the changes. I also posted about this in the Administrators' noticeboard, please, contribute there. Adam Harangozó (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Could we have a link to the appropriate discussion please? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
It's here. Adam Harangozó (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:History of the Jews in Taiwan#Requested move 25 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:History of the Jews in Taiwan#Requested move 25 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

FAR for unification of Germany

User:Buidhe has nominated Unification of Germany for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Polish-Ukrainian conflict in 1940s

Hi, need your help. There's discussion regarding what to call result in Polish-Ukrainian conflict in 1940s. Partially discussion took place here as well. Dƶoxar (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hierarchy

Would like editor's thoughts on this claim:

  • "Humans have lived in societies without formal hierarchies long before the establishment of states, realms, or empires."

Discussion here:

--David Tornheim (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Decade overviews

I have set up Category:decade overviews as a set of categories, as well as articles, and navboxes, as part of WikiProject History Contemporary History task force, which I chair.

Please feel free to contact me any time, with any comments, ideas or questions. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Kaunas Fortress

Kaunas Fortress has been nominated for a 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Requested move 21 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Requested move 21 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Exploration, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 29 April 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Merge discussion from Racial discrimination to Racism

There is a Merge discussion at Talk:Racism#Merge from Racial discrimination that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HudecEmil (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tamil Genocide#Requested move 2 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tamil Genocide#Requested move 2 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Expert attention needed

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Guru Tegh Bahadur involving a "Historiography" section. I'd like a member of this Wikiproject to weigh in on the matter. Thanks for any help! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Standard formatting of titles for outline/timeline articles and categories

This issue was discussed at Talk:Outline of the history of the United States#Move. I think the standard formatting of titles for these articles and categories should be "Outline/Timeline of the history of [country]". The standard title for history articles is "History of [country]", so for consistency, timeline/outline articles naturally should be an extension of said titles, so they are easier to find. It also avoids demonym ambiguity. But a large number of articles currently have the demonym formatted title; see Category:Timelines by country. We should establish consensus here to put in the edit summary of all page moves, before I start moving a large number of pages. HertzDonuts (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners

Article is pretty messy and needs more people to look at it and work on it. More high quality and hopefully academic sources are needed. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

FAR for The Slave Community

I have nominated The Slave Community for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency#Requested move 26 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency#Requested move 26 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that National economy (Turkey), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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 00:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Forging the medieval on Wikipedia

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

History of the United States subtopic proposed moves

An editor has requested that History of the United States (1776–1789) be moved to History of the United States from 1776 to 1789, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. CMD (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Economic imperialism

Hi, I've created a draft at Draft:Economic imperialism as this seems to be a big omission in wikipedia's coverage, and was wondering whether anyone would be interested in collaborating to write and structure it, including defining scope and gathering sources. Economic imperialism currently links to Theory of imperialism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

FAR: Middle Ages

I have nominated Middle Ages for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Borsoka (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

new resource: the History Cafe

We are proud to introduce a new page for collaboration, brainstorming, and various collective activity. we call it: the History Cafe.

this new page is to potentially serve as a place for deeper discussions about history topics, efforts, and creative ideas, and possibly discussions to include editors from multiple wikiprojects, and perhaps topical areas that relate to the historical topics being discussed.

please note some of the core reasons for this new cafe, and some of the potential roles:

  • discusssions requiring deeper analysis amongst a dedicated group of editors
  • since it is not a regular talk page, it would not draw large number of editors there, except those motivated by specific goals, or invited by others.
  • gathering-place for multiple wikiprojects related to history. however, any such usage must be implemented by active members of those wikiprojects.
  • impetus for this was a multi-layered discussion in the talk section further above on this page, as of June 25, 2024 related to coverage of "modern history" topics.
Please note: a tab for this "cafe" has been added to the tab header for pages at WikiProject History.

we welcome your comments. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


comments welcome below. Sm8900 (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Analysis of Western European colonialism and colonization listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Analysis of Western European colonialism and colonization to be moved to Analysis of European colonialism and colonization. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Requested move at Talk:Jutish#Requested move 18 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jutish#Requested move 18 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. PK2 (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Years discussion about "Significant Lifeforms"

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Significant Lifeforms about changes to per-year articles made by another editor, which has not had any third-party response. Perhaps this WikiProject is more active. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Colonization

There is a two-person discussion of the lead sentence at Talk:Colonization. It could use some additional eyes (and fingers). Zerotalk 04:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge inactive history WikiProjects

I'd like to propose merging the following inactive WikiProjects categorised under history into Wikipedia:WikiProject History:

The process is outlined here but basically amounts to converting the inactive WikiProjects to task forces of WP History one and merging/moving all of its templates and categories accordingly.

Hopefully this would bring a bit more life into these subjects and direct editors interested in them to an active group of editors rather than a moribund talk page. It could also help drive more traffic to this project. – Joe (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Good idea, also see from many moons ago! ——Serial Number 54129 11:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
As SN says. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose for Middle Ages, which can't possibly be called "inactive" and has some subpages. It might well be more active if someone hadn't added at the top of the talk, the ?undiscussed? note: "NOTE: It is recommended that new discussions about the Middle Ages be at one of the Project Discussion Forums and not on the talk page which is for project administration discussions. " - a very bad recommendation imo. Support the others; I wouldn't even bother with "task forces" - a sure way to kill off activity, imo. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    It may be quicker to rename the pages and convert the template as task forces, but I suggest redirecting all the talk pages to this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Johnbod: Even if the Middle Ages project has some activity, is it worth maintaining it as a separate project—with its own parallel set of templates, categories, etc.—just for the sake of a handful questions a year on that talk page instead of this one? My feeling is that it would benefit both projects to centralise discussion here and eliminate the duplicated maintenance work. We're spread much more thin these days than we were when all these WPs were created.
    Agreed on task forces being a waste of time. I've separately proposed streamlining the process of merging inactive WPs here, if it's of interest. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    hi all. glad to see this discuission occurring here. we would welcome any task forces here, if anyone wishes to develop them. obviously all of it is strictly voluntarty, as you all know. open to all ideas, of course. Sm8900 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: these are clearly in the scope of WikiProject History. No comment for the WikiProject Middle Ages, which is not super active but has opposition here (so it's probably not totally inactive!). — MarkH21talk 07:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: I see considerable benefit in tighter coordination between different "flavors" of history. There are huge blind spots in Wikipedia's coverage of history, including top-level articles like modern era. If it wasn't such a fiercely independent institution by now, I would favor adding all history projects under the aegis of this project, including WP:MILHIST. Other than disputes over layout and procedure, I don't really see how any project would be worse off as as task force. Peter Isotalo 11:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Normally, no one follows task force pages, & they become totally inactive. These are already dead, and as task forces would remain so, so if you like no "worse off". Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
      Sounds like a technical quibble. WP:MILHIST task forces seem to be doing fine so the format per se is clearly not the issue. Can't imagine that editors would give up on their favorite topics solely because of organizational mergers. Peter Isotalo 15:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
      • They very sensibly don't attempt to maintain talk pages, so are essentially bot-maintained lists of "members" and articles (with extremely low views). WP's best-organized wikiproject might be able to make a go of this (though what does "seem to be doing fine" actually mean?), but like Joe above, I don't think there'd be any benefit for these ones. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
        I'm supporting merging projects which I think belong together because I think we would all benefit from it. The technical-administrative aspects of how to organize sub-divisions of a general history project is not something we need to decide on to agree on a merger.
        If there are things that a more specific history project is doing better than the general history project, then propose concrete changes. Refusing to merge project out of sheer principle doesn't make much sense. Peter Isotalo 19:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
        • And you don't understand it? I imagine that is intended to refer to me, but I'm not doing that. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
          If you want people to understand your motivations and principles, just explain them. And please, please, please stop it with the unprovoked snark. It's disheartening and completely unnecessary. Peter Isotalo 06:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Peter Isotalo Agree hmm, well I would sure agree with that, as one useful approach. TeacupY a cup of tea for you. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done, thanks all. – Joe (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested input at Talk:List of common misconceptions over lede

Looking for uninvolved editors opinions on the discussion at List of common misconceptions on whether the lede meets sourcing requirements. Conversation seems to have stalled. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Improving human history

I think the human history article needs more attention. I've been engaging with the article for almost two weeks now, and I it's been receiving treatment that is much too superficial. Above all, it needs a much more consistent academic perspective, or at least feedback that's based on high-quality sources dealing with world history as a discipline.

From what I can see, feedback on factual accuracy and balance has been focused almost exclusively on very personal opinions about what which history is "important" enough for inclusion which is just not working out. The feedback regarding periodization and structure of the article has in my view been especially lacking. If there's anyone with any kind of experience with academic history, especially world history, please chip in. It's an extremely important article but also very difficult to work with because how vast the scope is. Peter Isotalo 22:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Mfecane talk page

Hello everyone! I've been preparing for a re-write of the Mfecane article and would really appreciate some feedback at the talk page. Thanks in advance! Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Requested move 12 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Requested move 12 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Human history and Wikipedia history writing has major problems

I believe that human history has become a nadir of problems that English Wikipedia has with writing about history. The article itself (at least the recorded history part) is mostly just a collection of historical events that are considered notable and relevant for inclusion by individual editors. The view of professional historians is being toned down, ignored or selectively presented to fit individual opinions. Several users also appear to be engaging in some sort of campaign against the validity of the entire sub-discipline of world history. The impression I'm getting is of openly disparaging and hostile view of academic historians to an extent that in other fields of research would be considered fringe.

This is a serious, systemic problem that needs attention. Peter Isotalo 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please name these editors or withdraw the accusations. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Human history is obviously a really difficult topic to tackle and I think Cerebellum, Phlsph7 and others have done something incredibly impressive in bringing it up to good article standard. With such a broad topic there will always be room for improvement but on the whole a collection of historical events that are considered notable and relevant for inclusion sounds like... exactly what it should be? I've raised issues with its coverage of prehistory (my area of expertise) in the past and they've always been promptly and amicably addressed; I've seen plenty of others have the same experience on the talk page. In contrast, what I see in recent discussions is multiple editors trying really hard to understand your quite unfocused feedback and in return getting this escalating series of aspersions, personal attacks, and now accusations of a conspiracy. – Joe (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Oral tradition

Would people be interested in joining a wikiproject on improving and creating articles about oral tradition? Wikipedia's coverage on this appears to be very poor Kowal2701 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

i appreciate your post here on this. sounds interesting! Sm8900 (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry should've linked the page, it's WP:WikiProject Anthropology/Oral tradition taskforce Kowal2701 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviving Task force Philippine history

Hey, so I'm trying to gauge if there's any interest in reviving the old PH history task-force. I'm personally interested and I was hoping if there are more people who'd be piqued as well. If we get enough support we can start clean in the TF and collaborate on what needs to be done. What do you guys think? NyanThousand (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

pinging @Kowal2701, who expressed some interest elsewhere, in ideas generally along these lines. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I think we should look at reorganising this WP around taskforces and have this as a central hub for collaboration between taskforces. There are quite a few taskforces but they have very limited use. If people very much agree, we could make a fleshed out proposal and then ping all members? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
sorry moving too hastily Kowal2701 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
well, your ideas are good. you can view this page as a place for brainstorming. simply feel free to post any ideas you find interesting, and then see what response you get. anything you want to explore is fine. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
There are already taskforces for each region, I was thinking these could be revived and serve as primary places for collaboration. Also WP:European history could be merged into a taskforce if people over there agree. Personally I'd be happy to do a lot of the boring set up like tagging around the African history taskforce. The people at WP:WikiProject Council have expressed similar ideas about placing more emphasis on taskforces. If people like the sound of this, we could ping a couple of them to hear their thoughts? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing new history articles

For those who aren't aware, there is a bot-maintained list of new, unreviewed history articles at User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting/History and Society/History. It's currently quite backlogged and help would be appreciated. There's some interesting stuff in there but also often a lot of minor battles and historical biographies that can be a bit tricky to review without some background knowledge.

You need the new page reviewer permission to mark articles in the list as reviewed. If anyone wants to help out but doesn't already have it, you can request it at WP:PERM/NPR – give me a ping if you do so and I'll make it's processed promptly. You will need to have an extended confirmed account and some prior experience in writing new articles, reviewing WP:AFC submissions, and/or participating in deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Herrenvolk democracy

There is currently a discussion concerning whether or not it is appropriate to display the flag of Israel on this article. Experienced editors are invited to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Family tree of Chinese monarchs (ancient)#Requested move 3 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Family tree of Chinese monarchs (ancient)#Requested move 3 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Gadsden Purchase

Gadsden Purchase has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Arab migrations to the Maghreb

Arab migrations to the Maghreb has been nominated for a 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. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC concerning an article which may be of interest to this project

See Talk:Flying car#RfC on the inclusion of Whitehead's No. 21 machine in this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History/Archive_6&oldid=1259487965"