Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries/Archive 6
|WikiProject Former countries||(Rated Project-class)|
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 5||Archive 6||Archive 7|
- 1 Type of Government
- 2 Iberian Taifa kingdoms
- 3 Coordinators' working group
- 4 Article alerts
- 5 New Referendum
- 6 Template:Infobox Former Country
- 7 WP:OTTOMAN
- 8 FAR for Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
- 9 Call for editors to join African history Wikiproject
- 10 Hesse-Cassel or Hesse-Kassel
- 11 Persian Empire
- 12 Middle Francia merge proposal
- 13 Referendums Page
Type of Government
Three new articles have appeared on my radar: Bavaria-Landshut, Bavaria-Ingolstadt and Bavaria-Munich. Now I am by no means an expert, but I have a problem with the category and description of being a "Monarchy" as kings in Bavaria did not exist until after Napoleon. As this falls into the Projects scope, could you take a look. Thanks. Agathoclea (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- The term "Monarchy" aptly describes these duchies' forms of government. A "monarchy" is a form of government in which supreme power is absolutely or nominally lodged in an individual, who is the head of state, often for life or until abdication, and is usually passed by hereditary means. Although these duchies were not ruled by kings, but by dukes, they were still monarchies. Laurinavicius (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Iberian Taifa kingdoms
Some time ago I made separate articles for almost every of the spanish taifa kingdoms. However these are mostly stubs with only an infobox and list of rulers. Lately I have anyways become aware of the fact that most of the taifa kingdoms seems to have its own nice article in its Spanish-language counterparts. I don't know Spanish myself, but if someone else do, it would be nice to get these articles translated into English. Or we could somehow highlight it as a task so people can more easily help with it. Gabagool (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the
display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Hi everyone! This is just a notice to let everyone know that a new referendum has been posted on our project's recently-created Referendums Page. This new referendum is in regards to the adoption of a C-Class article-rating for our project.
Here's the background of this motion: WikiProject Former Countries does not currently have an "official" C-class, one that is recognized by the entire community, although some editors and bots have classified approximately 139 (at this moment) articles as C-Class. The argument for creating a C-Class is that it will make Start-Class more manageable by identifying articles that are close to B-Class and this can be achieved effortlessly by modifying the existing template. The arguments against are that it is "class creep", an unnecessary additional layer and an administrative overhead.
Template:Infobox Former Country
In the Template:Infobox Former Country, the year_start is used as a display and to place the article in the category year_start establishments. However, in the article Kievan Rus', the year_start is entered as 10th century, which is used as a display in the infobox to produce 10th century – 1132, but places the article in the category 10th century establishments, whereas the correct category should be Category:10th-century establishments, hyphenated because 10th-century is being used as an adjective. Obviously, year_start should not be changed to 10th-century in the article, because the display in the infobox would then be wrong. So the template should be changed so that, when a century rather than a year is entered in year_start, the hyphen should be added automatically to the category. My knowledge of template syntax is insufficient to be able to make the change myself. Coyets (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good day Coyets! I'd like to say that I realize and undestand your problem and would like to offer you several solutions. First off, if you feel that the template syntax needs to be changed, then you should suggest it on the templat'e talk page, located here.
- However, I have three simpler solutions for you. The first is to "10th century" to "900s", which places the article in the existing category 900s establishments. This type of dating is exemplified on such articles as Mali Empire and Chola Dynasty, both of which are featured articles. The second solution is to estimate the start_year, which is used in such articles as Western Ganga Dynasty. The final solution is to use the date 880, as this date is used several times within the article, including within the lead paragraph, or 882, which is used in the article Oleg of Novgorod. However, seeing as 880 and 882 are estimates, I think that it would be more appropriate to use 880s.
- In my opinion, the final solution (880s) is the best choice. I have already edited the article's infobox to reflect this. If you have any objections, feel free to speak to me on my talk page. Cheers! --Laurinavicius (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting us know, and we can't to begin collaborating with you guys on Ottoman Empire-related articles! Cheers! Laurinavicius (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
FAR for Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
I have nominated Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Call for editors to join African history Wikiproject
All editors with a specific interest in African history are invited to help start a new African history Wikiproject. This is not a substitute for the Africa Wikiproject, but editors with a specific interest in African history would collaborate on improving the quality of African history on Wikipedia. For more details click here or here here.
- Thanks for letting us know, and we can't to begin collaborating with you guys on African history-related articles! Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Hesse-Cassel or Hesse-Kassel
possibly foolishly, I have re-opened the C-or-K naming dispute at Talk:William VIII, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel#Proposed move (3). If you have a strong opinion either way as to whether we should use the C form or the K form in the articles in question, please express it there. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note that there is an editwar occuring at Persian Empire, with content shifting from being a 60k article, a redirect, or a disambiguation page. Previous to the 2 month long edit war, the article was a 60k article. As this article falls in the purview of your wikiproject, I thought I'd let you know.
- thx Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting us know. I've already taken a glance at what's going on there, but I don't really see an "edit war". To me, it actually seems like an orderly and proper proposal for a title change and page move, rather than an edit war. I'll post my opinon on this proposal relatively soon, once I gather more information on the topic, and, hopefully, other editors will do the same. Laurinavicius (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- If it were a page move, the size of the article wouldn't fluctuate, the name of the article would change, unless it were contavening WP:C&P... Unless you're looking at the wrong page? Talk:Persian Empire vs Talk:Achaemenid Empire ( vs ) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Middle Francia merge proposal
- Thanks for letting us know. I've already posted my views on the proposal on the talk page, and, hopefully, other editors will do the same. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I'd just like to direct your attention to this WikiProject's Referendums Page. Although this page has been up and running for more than six months now, the sole referendum currently on debate has only had two votes (and one of which was my own). Now, with a lack of voters discussing and voting on this measure, it cannot be passed and implemented, and more referendums cannot be introduced too! Thus, I'd just like to bring this to everyone's attention and ask that everyone who reads this please go the Referendums Page (the link is above), join the discussion, and vote on the current referendum (which concerns the adoption of a C-Class for the WikiProject). Thanks all! Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)