Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History

Main pageDiscussion pageSub-pages indexArticle
AlertsAssessmentReviewCollaborationTask ForcesOutreachMembersPopular pagesHistory cafe .. ]]

WikiProject Announcements

History Noticeboard Skip to Table of Contents Working Groups at WikiProject History: Assessment · Collaboration · Review · Outreach · Task forces Talk page This is the central discussion area for WikiProject History. Feel free discuss any topics relating to history here. It is recommended that members watchlist this page Collaboration of the month The collaboration of the month for October is List of history topics. Peer review Current peer review requests: Rogers Act History of Anatolia 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla A-Class review Current A-class review nominations: History of Indonesia

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!

WikiProject History needs you!!!!

Hi everyone. I am writing to ask for any volunteers who might like to get more involved here at WikiProject History. Right now, we would like to get WikiProject History up and running again. A number of people have signed up in the past, and indicated their willingness to be involved. If you're still here, feel free to reply here. You can reply here in this section, even if it's just to say hello. If you want, you can simply let me know what you are personally working on right now. or also, if you want, you can let me know what your interests are, what topics you find interesting, what you;d like to do, or how you'd like to be involved. whatever it may be, we'd like to hear from you. we appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting and calling out. Community building can be a challenge. My view is that if a WikiProject manages to attract 3 people who post once a month, then that is the foundation for being ready for newcomer comments and engagement. All this works better if none of those three go far out of their usual routine and if they also watch for comments. I am unable to be around regularly myself, but I will be a sport and post a challenge for now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, that's terrific. thanks for your reply. yes, that's totally fine. a little interaction is all we need to keep things moving along here. it is great to hear from you. whatever frequency is feasible for individuals is totally fine here. our main goal is simply to get different views over time. your note is very helpful. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for a while, and it's nice to see a little activity around here – it has been seeming a little moribund lately. I agree with Blue Raspberry – you don't need that many posts for a project to reach a critical mass of activity where people start looking at it regularly. Take WP:CGR – there are only about 5 new discussions posted on the talk page per month, but while a few of those are notices of discussions elsewhere, most of them do actually lead to discussion on the talk page itself. And if you hang about there, you will notice the same names coming up again and again in discussions. I suspect the same is true of other active wikiprojects – there are a few regular contributors who keep discussions going, which makes anyone else who looks in feel as though it's worth watching the page. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto those are great points. I appreciate your ideas and input here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see the initiative and jumping in to say that this talk page is now on my watchlist too. I do not have much experience with article assessment or other WikiProject-specific tasks, but history is one of my areas of interest, and I do work on a lot of history-related articles, so it's good to know that this space can possibly be used as a resource/sounding board for related questions when/if they come up.--MattMauler (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Developing a canon of culture to translate

In a few months there will be an LGBT+ Wiki conference as described at meta:Queering Wikipedia. This will be the first global gathering of LGBT+ Wikipedia editors to develop LGBT+ content.

Telling the story of the history of the LGBT+ movement is a challenge. We have cultural diversity, as every culture has an LGBT+ history with events. We also have many time periods to cover, as over the centuries, some cultures had more or less activity with records to mention. There is no canon of most popular or recommended events or topics in LGBT+ global history.

As with all Wikipedia development projects we have limited volunteer labor. There are thousands of English language topics, but if the goal is to promote global education and culture, then we should focus on a subset of these articles and stage that subset for translation. I guessed that 100 articles would be a good number, and documented this concept at meta:Wiki99.

Here is my question for WikiProject History: suppose that a group wants to promote global multilingual education in a field, and that group decides to develop about 100 Wikipedia articles in that field for translation and cultural exchange. How should we determine the weight of how many of those articles should be from one country, and from what time period?

Some cases where people have asked about this are religion, architecture, science, women's history, medicine, and other similar broad fields which have their own regional and global culture and history. Any brief thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I am wary of efforts like this and WiR because it starts with a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS premise. The meta page you linked lists people of other ideologies as "barriers" which seems needlessly hostile and would otherwise be considered a personal attack. That said, I think that the content developed should be driven by available source material, not arbitrary quotas. While English-language articles can be translated with their English-language citations to other wikis, compliance with WP:V as it exists in other wikis is best accomplished locally with source material from those languages. I would hope translators would be searching for those en-wp articles that are also supported in the target language's literature thereby enabling editors in other languages to discover sources they can read directly rather than reply upon machine translation. There's also a neo-Colonial edge to the project which I find problematic. Shouldn't we let the foreign-language readership determine which articles they desire rather than have articles chosen by first-world editors? I would start in the target-language wikis looking for requested articles and preponderant red links. Our biases as editors shouldn't determine what happens outside our home wiki under the guise of "diversity." Chris Troutman (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: If there is hostility then it is an error and either you or anyone else could remove it. I am not immediately sure what seems negative here.

Wikipedia does not have a philosophy or culture of translation right now. I am not aware of any systematic effort to choose what to translate or how to pass content around.

My objective in encouraging a little translation is to encourage yet more editing and cultural exchange. When there is little content on a subject in any language Wikipedia, then few people want to start engaging. After there is a little information, even if it is low quality, then more people will engage to make that better.

Of course English language Wikipedia is dominant and I do not want that forever. However, Wikipedia is having its 19th birthday this week and still we have major content gaps in many languages with no plan to fix that. Somehow in some way we should plan to get more content into more languages and improve cultural exchange. I am not sure what that looks like, but curating a little content for translation seems like a safe enough low-labor, low-cost initiative for some people to try.

If you have an idea to do things differently then suggest an alternative. Any other options are helpful. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to side-step the LGBTQ topic, & address the more general issue: where should we encourage article development between Wikipedias of different languages? My answer is that we should encourage articles in a given Wikipedia to give preference to sources in its native language. That is, German Wikipedia articles should prefer sources in German, Russian Wikipedia articles in Russian, etc. I base my answer on finding far too often that instead of researching a given topic -- which means the author will look at materials in their own native language -- the equivalent English Wikipedia article is translated without concern about its quality. I first noticed this problem several years ago when I was working on articles about the Empire of Trebizond, where the most recent work has been published in Modern Greek & Russian. When I looked at the corresponding articles in those languages -- hoping to save myself some time finding & translating sources -- I was surprised to find these articles were translations of the en.wikipedia articles, which at the time was based on a book written in 1926! (Even more depressing was the fact that when I looked at corresponding articles in other language Wikipedias, every one was a translation of the same en.wikipedia article, with little attempt to expand on the material!)

I don't know if this answers your question, Bluerasberry, but I feel if speakers of non-English languages were a little more chauvinistic about their mother tongues, Wikipedia as a whole would be stronger in every topic. -- llywrch (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki99 for world history

I gave a go at compiling ~99 articles as an attempt at a canon of world history.

• meta:Wiki99/world history

Suppose that we imagine a class of educated people who receive a bachelor's degree or equivalent from a university and who have some liberal arts training. This class of people intends to participate in the globalized workforce, with many individuals having a career which includes international collaboration with at least one foreign culture and the collective cohort including individuals who collaborate with every major culture on earth. What 100 topics are useful for such people to know globally? Are there topics which we should expect 95%+ of all such people to know?

For example, can a person be university educated, and traveling around the world doing business or work projects, and participate fully in society if they are completely ignorant that certain classical civilizations ever existed, or that there was a time of colonization, and an age of slavery, and international relations through history? In compiling this list, I attempted to choose topics which both are part of multiple cultures' histories, and which represent most people on earth the most often, and which track the chain of progress through history.

It is not easy to compile lists of this sort and I am sure many people could criticize it. If anyone has criticism, then I would especially like feedback on who has also compiled such a list, if anyone can identify any such similar project for global translation of a canon, and how anyone balanced the representation of the list.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinators, facilitators and volunteers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update to page and to my role

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

note re wiki item

hey @Bluerasberry:, @Llywrch:, here's a little template that I made up. do you like this? this is my first time at playing around with templates. just thought it'd be nice to work on. feel free to let me know what you think. maybe this might be helpful occasionally, now and then. thanks!!!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Talking about principles like this is not usually a part of WikiProject discussion, but if you have interest in this, and you can rally WikiProject contributors to engage with such things, then we are in a strange and appropriate time right now to seek community comment.

Regarding what you wrote, all of this is still part of Wikipedia best practices and I still agree with all of it. These are all great things to say and can inspire people. These are the best we have now, and I am not sure what comes next, but it happens that in a few days there will be a major publication recommending Wikimedia Movement best practices and changes.

If you are interested in strategy and statements of purpose, then I encourage you to watch meta:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations from 20 January 2020 and to comment on it within 5 weeks. This strategy discussion has been in process for 4 years and this is the last phase for comment before the next phase of the process, which is implementation of the recommendations. Many people are anxious about this short comment period, which came to be because of past delays and already planned future deadlines which should not move. If you find an angle in the strategic planning to advocate for the interests of the many history WikiProjects in many languages, then please speak out in comment on the meta page after 20 January and encourage others to do the same.

This is part of a transition. Jimbo had some guiding ideas in the beginning but he has regularly divested responsibility and advocated for more Wikimedia community leadership and control over the movement. If WikiProject history found it meaningful to do so, as a community you could set your own goals and principles, perhaps in the context of these recommendations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Anent Wikimedia Movement strategy/best practices: my concern all along has not been about the basic principles or guiding ideals, but about the proposals of how to apply them. I suspect some are using the current exercise to fashion iron rice bowls for themselves, at the expense of the rest of us. -- llywrch (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

hi folks. thanks for your replies here. Bluerasberry, that is really fascinating to know. I will take a look at that page. thanks!!

Llywrch, you make some valid points as well. it is totally valid to think about and to wonder where this will take us. i suggest we all try to look at this, and see what we can glean from there, and also what we can offer or discuss.

this is an interesting topic. i had totally known about this before. now I'm doubly glad that I posted that template above, just as food for thought. thanks for the great info, again, Bluerasberry! I will take a look there. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael E Nolan take a look at the replies above, especially the comment from Bluerasberry about the discussions currently in process, interesting, isn't it?

everyone, I initially posted this template on my own talk-page, then tagged Michael E Nolan to give him a little look-see at this. we both liked it, but we weren't really sure where we could use it. glad that this could lead unexpectedly to some new and interesting topics! thanks for your replies here. let's keep the discussions going. maybe over a nice cup of coffee, too! thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

New role for Task Forces

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

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

Task forces currently listed on main page for WikiProject History:

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

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

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

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

Replies below

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

New member introductions

Bumping thread for 3560 days. Keeping this section here, as a general resource for new member intros and comments. thanks! .Sm8900 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add your introductory comments below

• Hi I’m interested in history of all places and periods. The areas I’m most keen to work in are Middle Eastern history and European colonial history. I’m very interested in China and Japan and can help tidy up articles about them, but can’t read Chinese or Japanese sources. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Hi there, I'm most interested in New Zealand history, however, I also have a general interest in French and premodern history. --Violetnights (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

CO-PILOTS needed!!! :-)

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

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

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

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

Urban history

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

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

new drafts , us political current history

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

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)

Manzanar featured article review

I have nominated Manzanar for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

RfC on Basilica

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

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)

hello

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

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

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

Offer to stand by and support anyone doing history of medicine

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

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

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

Splitting proposal at Charding Nullah

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

Clearances

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

• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_27#Clearances

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

Feedback requested at German rearmament

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

At Talk:Slavery

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

Skateboarding Digital History Project

The Skateboarding Digital History Project (SBDHP), founded in 2018 by wil540, is a research and publishing initiative promoting the digitization of skateboarding history. The goal of the SBDHP is to create and promote the creation of accessible skateboard history online. The project currently focuses on writing wikipedia articles for notable skateboarders and skateboard related items; as well as, leading skateboarding themed edit-a-thons. In October 2019, the Skateboarding Digital History Project and Wikipedia for Educators at Fordham hosted its first edit-a-thon, a Latinx-American Skateboarding themed edit-a-thon, that took place in the Bronx, New York. Articles for Jaime Reyes & Ben Sanchez were written at this edit-a-thon.

Goals for the future

1. The SBDHP plans to host more edit-a-thons in 2020.
2. The SBDHP plans to continue publishing and facilitating donations of skateboard photography to Wikimedia Commons.
3. The SBDHP dreams to translate articles about skateboarding/skateboarders to other languages.

Please reach out with any questions, comments, or suggestions on the talk page or you can email us at: skateboardingDHP@gmail.com.

Follow the SBDHP on instagram at: https://www.instagram.com/sbdhp/

Infobox map change RFC

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

Appropriate content on articles about country estates

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

Use of the term "Discovered" when discussing early explorers

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

History portal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pais de los Maynas

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

Please add your responses to inquiries on this talk page

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

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

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

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

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

An offer to help

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

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

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

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

Cleavage (breasts)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on Anne Frank

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

In wake of Beirut, Texas City disaster needs attention

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

I'm getting the taskforce back together!

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

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

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