Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs
In the absence of a need to disambiguate, how should we title the articles of European imperial and royal monarchs?
If you support multiple options, please rank your preferences to assist the closer in identifying consensus. 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Is it okay to add "Rust prevention technology of Terracotta army", to the article list?...the reverted edit dif 08:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
How should the modern National Rally be described in the infobox?
Looking to establish consensus. Thank you! KlayCax (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the "Fancy Dutch religion and Anglo-American prejudice" section contain a quote from 1903 in which the Fraktur typeface is used instead of the standard Wikipedia font? Thanks in advance to all those leaving their comments. Vlaemink (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the section Spanish Civil War contain the below paragraphs? For details and arguments exchanged, please see above |
Talk:Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis (2021–present)
| Should the lead section mention the border delimitation agreement reached between Armenia and Azerbaijan in April 2024? Please see this section: [1] Grandmaster 09:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
These two sources, among many others, are currently being used in the Muhammad article.
Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable? — Kaalakaa (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
The genocide in Srebrenica is massively denied in Serbia and parts of Bosnia (and some other countires as well). The term massacre is used by those who deny the genocide not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide". (Changed from this [2], to have sentence that is sourced)
|
There are two questions.
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
Jonima family and Principality of Muzaka are listed in the infobox section "Belligerents". Should they continue to stay there?
|
| Should the following map be considered reliable? Super Ψ Dro 23:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
How should the Nakba described?
Which version should be included in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
| A dispute has arisen over whether the final sentence of the lede's third paragraph should reflect that Brezhnev's policies badly strained the Soviet economy (A) "in later years following his death " or (B) "during the later years of his rule and long after his death". Based on the evidence presented in the body of the article, which of the aforementioned interpretations is acceptable for the article's lede? Emiya1980 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years
| This has been briefly and unclearly mentioned before but the current treatment of Chinese dating in our year by year infoboxes is nearly entirely mistaken. Yes, the sexagenary cycle is real and important to mention.
A. No, Yellow Emperor dates aren't really a thing, the way they're being presented. I mean, sure, they're a thing in the exact same way AUC dates are. They're a fad some people went through in the 19th & 20th century, largely based on the mistaken idea that other important people had used them. The Romans actually almost entirely used eponymous consular dating. The Chinese actually entirely (except for that fad still somewhat upheld on almanac-style Chinese lunisolar calendars) used imperial era names. It's a more valid notable system than the Discordian calendar we keep as lagniappe from Wiki's fun early days, sure, but it's entirely WP:UNDUE to treat it as the Chinese year now and just a WP:LIE to treat it as the Chinese year in any historical context. It's fine to keep but it absolutely needs to be labeled (YE, AH, AHD, whatever) to clarify what it is, which isn't the "Chinese calendar year". B. No, we don't need to include two Yellow Emperor dates. There's a list of different epochs on our Chinese calendar page. No, the other ones aren't as notable (especially in English) as YE dating and don't need to be included in the infobox. However, absolutely none of them involve a computation that even remotely produces an equivalent year 4514/4515 for AD 2024. The same section of the same page includes what I think the second "Chinese year" in the infobox is trying to do: In 1905, the Jiangsu provincial government used a system that would've made 2024 the year 4514/4515 if anyone still used their system. Per cursory Googling in English, we're the only ones who seem to and we should just stop. Unless the second system is actually still prominently used (which the article should be changed to discuss), no, it isn't important to cover variant YE dates any more than all the variant AUC dates or Marianus Scotus's variant AD computation that was popular for a while in the 12th century. C. Yes, we absolutely need to include the era dates. Like the Greek and Romans, actual Chinese dating was based on regnal eras. Years in some periods like the Northern and Southern Dynasties had more than one era name and both should be included. Years were double counted as the last year of a dying emperor's reign and the first year of his successor's; both should be included. Reigns before the Han dynasty without formal era names should just list the regnal names (or conventional regency name) standard in Chinese historiography at least as far back as the Eastern Zhou. We could simply omit less certain regnal years before that or include conventional dates from a single system along the same lines as the calculation of the Yellow Emperor's reign in the first place; we don't seem to include footnotes on questionable eras for the other sections but could for those if people felt strongly about it. In any case, there's at least 2000-odd years of an established dating system being used by roughly a fourth of humanity that we aren't mentioning or even vaguely hinting at. We should fix that. D. Eh, the "Minguo calendar" is simply the continuation of the exact same system, switched over to Gregorian months and years. I get why you might not want to include it in the "Chinese year" section after 1949 and why that means not including it before 1949 either. Fact remains that it's literally the exact same system, using the people's government as the new eternal era name. Similarly, as far as our article on the Republic of China calendar knows, it isn't used for dates before 1912. Our template currently (mis)uses it for ~3000 years before 1912, at least as far back as 719 BC. It's possible some people have used it that way, which should be added to our article. It's certainly uncommon and the infobox shouldn't be using it for any of those earlier years at all, just like we don't have a Juche calendar date for 1900. E. No, we shouldn't have a separate name for the ROC era. The Minguo era page might very well be in the wrong place. The discussion for its move from Minguo calendar to Republic of China calendar was very short and apparently based on misreliance on misplacement of the Juche calendar page to "North Korean calendar". Whichever is right, though, our infobox and the page should be using the same name for the same epoch. — LlywelynII 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should the Black War be referred to as a "genocide" in Wikivoice?
Should it be stated? KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the ancient kingdom of Macedon be described as Greek at the time of Alexander the Great?
If you have time, please read the arguments in the references in footnote (d) in Alexander the Great's page already posted online above (see "Questioning Alexander the Great's identity) but if you do not have much time, please focus on Fine (1983) who summarizes modern scholarship as "almost unanimously recognizes them as Greeks" but did not qualify the timeline and did not use the phrases "reached consensus" nor "reached unanimity". Based on the references in footnote (d), the debate regarding this matter has been ongoing for decades among historians but only references that sided with the argument that the ancient Macedonians were Greek are included in the references in footnote (d). I am not a historian, hence, I do not have access to published books nor to scientific journals. My only references are from tertiary, but reputable, sources: (1) from MIT.edu that states: "all historians admit that by Roman times the ancient Macedonians were fully homogenized with the rest of Greeks, and that Macedonia stopped existing as a separate socio-cultural entity some 600 years before any contact with the first Slavs in the Balkans."; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica and (3) National Geographic Society, the latter two of which describe the kingdom of Macedon on the topic Alexander the Great as "ancient", not "ancient Greek". Two editors above argue that the MIT.edu source is dated and was published "during the Clinton administration". I do not know exactly when the MIT page was published. In addition, the two editors claim they have consensus, because there are two vs. one (me) and based on this consensus, the "ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon" is the proper description. As a compromise, I asked the two editors to add a subtopic under Alexander the Great's page that describes the debate among historians that includes both arguments, and revert to "ancient" to describe the kingdom of Macedon until the historians have reached consensus on this matter. Please comment. 142.186.63.204 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should this statement: "Abdelkader's family was one of the most influential in the Arab Hashim tribe, which, after residing for a long time in the Rif region of Morocco, moved and established itself in the 18th century in the Beylik of Oran.[1][2][3]" be included in the early years section?808 AD (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
- ^ Regnal name and nominals
Name # - ^ Title, regnal name, and nominals
Title name # - ^ Regnal name, nominals, and realm
Name # of country - ^ Title, regnal name, nominals, and realm
Title name # of country - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name #, title of country - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name # (title of country) - ^ Regnal name, nominals, and realm
Name # (country) - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name #, title of country
- ^ Brill, E. J. (1993). E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936. A - Bābā Beg. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-09787-2.
- ^ "ʿAbd al-Ḳādir b. Muḥyī l-Dīn". referenceworks. doi:10.1163/9789004206106_eifo_SIM_0092. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
- ^ Larousse, Éditions. "Abd el-Kader en arabe 'Abd al-Qādir ibn Muḥyī al-Dīn - LAROUSSE". www.larousse.fr (in French). Retrieved 2024-05-21.