European history Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

European history WikiProject
Project navigation links
Main project page	talk
Portal
Members
Departments
→ Assessment	talk
→ Collaboration	talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Open tasks	talk
Project category	talk
European history categories
edit · changes

Archives

WP History of Scandinavia (2005-2008) Archive 1 (2007) Archive 2 (2008) Archive 3 (2009) Archive 4 (2010) Archive 5 (2011)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the European history articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello history people,

I've noticed that on the pages connected with the controversy about Daniel Goldhagen's writing - Hitler's Willing Executioners, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Hans Mommsen Eberhard Jäckel, and also the historian Theodor Schieder, there is reference made to "Fred Kautz", a Canadian historian. He makes some fairly strong comments about some of the people mentioned above. Because of this I checked out who he was, puzzled that he didn't have a wiki article. It turns out he's a "freelance" writer, not an appointed academic, who has written two books. The first is the attack on Goldhagen's critics, published by a minor non-academic publishing house, and the second, written in German in 2004 appears to be unnotable - certainly ignored in English. Should his views be given such weight, especially in the HWE page? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Kautz is a Canadian-German Historian with academic background also at University of Darmstadt, Germany. Fred Kautz is certainly not one of these corrupt historians earning lot of money as financed storyteller or traveling entertainer.[1][2]Web108 (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm a big fan and admirer of European History. I was looking the Task Force and Project listings to find one that sounded interesting. I was wondering what are the steps to becoming a member of this Task Force, I'd be eager to donate time to help out. I understand that I'm a fairly new Wikipedia User and that may cause a little apprehension, but I'm really eager to help out and I'd really appreciate any feedback anyone could give me. Thanks! (so you know, I had an account that I started last year and that I was a big contributor on but I lost my password so I started this account a few days ago.) Magister Scienta (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as ((citation)), ((cite journal)), ((cite web))...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=((arxiv|0123.4567)) (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id=((JSTOR|0123456789)) and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• ((cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id=((para|id|____)) ))

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I haven't been involved much lately, but I decided to boldy implement the extended quality parameters, in part because some were actually in use. The data should update at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/European history articles by quality statistics soon, and therefore on the mainpage, but in the interim the data can be viewed here: Template:WikiProject European history/class.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that myself along with 34 others, including the founder of the project, were removed with this vandal edit in 2009 and nobody every reverted it! I just copy-pasted the old user list, so we're all back. If someone actually wants to move all the users to a subpage or even clean up the list by removing banned/non-existent users and maybe moving inactive users (based on Wikipedia actions, not activity for the project which is nearly impossible to measure) to a separate subsection, then go for it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dicussion of this man's status as King and his article title at Talk:Svein, King of Norway. If interested please join in the discussion.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK nomination for C. A. Patrides needs to be reviewed.

Did you know

• ... that Constantinos A. Patrides, the author of Milton and the Christian tradition, earned a medal for heroism for his boyhood service with the Greek Resistance against the German Occupation?

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:East Germany#Satellite state of the USSR or not. Should this article describe East Germany (the former German Democratic Republic) as a satellite state of the former USSR?"" Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is up for FPOC. This is one of the highest (if not the highest) visibility portal on Wikipedia, I recommend commenting on it! Cheers, ResMar 23:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:European history will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in within European history. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Byzantine 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! I’m working with the Saylor foundation to create a series of original, crowd-sourced textbooks that will be openly licensed and freely available on the web and within Saylor’s free, self-paced courses at Saylor.org. We are using Wikibooks as a platform to host this project and hope to garner the interest of existing members of the Wikibooks and Wikipedia community, as well as bring in new members! We thought that some of your members may be interested in contributing to our book Saylor.org's Ancient Civilizations of the World.--Thomas Simpson (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One Hundred Years of Evil

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several requests to delete articles entitled "Line of succession to the former throne of X" (e.g. Württemberg, Tuscany, Two Sicilies) have recently been proposed for deletion from Wikipedia by Pat Gallacher. Although Wikipedians from various projects are being notified of these requests for removal, I think those who monitor this page may also appreciate being notified. FactStraight (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention is drawn to Talk:History_of_Vojvodina#Request_For_Comment_re:_WikiProject_Banners_on_this_page. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see Talk:Genetic history of Europe#Europeans share common ancestors who lived 1,000 years ago -- Moxy (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Fraktur, the old German blackletter typeface (as shown here), you may want to add this template to your userspace: ((User:Alarob/frak))

Using it will automatically put you in the skill category "Wikipedians who can read Fraktur." — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 03:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am working towards overall improvements to the Treaty of Versailles article. The following is from the territorial changes section. I have not been able to find any information that backs it up, yet it does not seem prudent to just delete it since it does add some background context. Can anyone confirm if the overall points are correct and at the same time provide some inline citations to support the paragraph?

"Germany′s borders in 1919 had been established nearly 50 years earlier, at the country′s official establishment in 1871. Territory and cities in the region had changed hands repeatedly for centuries, including at various times being owned by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Poland, and Kingdom of Lithuania. However, Germany laid claim to lands and cities that it viewed as historically "Germanic" centuries before Germany′s establishment as a country in 1871. Other countries disputed Germany′s claim to this territory. In the peace treaty, Germany agreed to return disputed lands and cities to various countries."

Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control#RFC. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this rfc could use additional input. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're having a discussion on the fate of Horrible Histories TV show at: Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)#Moving on. As a relevant Wikiproject, we would greatly appreciate it if you would voice your opinion on the talk page, or to have a crack at editing and improving it. Thankyou for your time. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Civil War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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.Isthisuseful (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin article has been proposed for deletion. Your opinions are welcomed. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed restrictions on styles & titles of former royals A proposal is now pending to !vote to ban use of titles, honorifics and styles historically associated with titled members of no longer reigning families or to require that wherever such titles are mentioned in a Wikipedia bio, article or template that a disclaimer must be attached informing the reader that the title/style is not legal or is a courtesy title only. You may read opinions and express your views here. FactStraight (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Western Europe, e.g. France, Spain is missing from the geographic listing.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have already posted this elsewhere, but have so far gained little feedback. As the reparations article links to this project, I am hoping some members will be able to help.

I am currently working on the World War I reparations article. I have hit a bump on Bulgarian reparations. so far, I have established the following:

1 - Treaty of Neuilly established that Bulgaria had to pay 2.250 billion Gold francs in reparations.(Treaty of Neuilly, Article 121)
2 - In 1923, the Bulgarian reparation sum was "revised downwards" to 550 million gold francs "plus a lump sum payment of 25 million francs for occupation costs".(Marks, Myths of Reparations, pp. 234-5)
3 - Between the treaty signing and April 1922, 173 million gold francs were paid. 4 - Between 1925 and 1929, Bulgaria paid a further 41 million gold francs, before reparations were abandoned at the Lausanne conference of 1932.

Does anyone have any additional information (including sources) to expand the above, especially in the following two areas: 1 - Do the above figures represent total Bulgarian reparation payment, and if not what were they? 2 - Did an event, such as the Dawes Plan for example, occur to revise down the Bulgarian reparation payments?

There is a discussion going on right now at WP:Categories for discussion that involves changing the category names for all cultures, from, for example, "Afghan society" to "Society of Afghanistan". I can see that next will be changing "German culture" to "Culture of Germany" and the like. This would be for all ethnicities, nationalities and cultures.
If you would like to weigh in, the conversation is occurring at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 27#Society by country. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just started a new article on Disappeared (Northern Ireland), which might be of interest to this WikiProject. GiantSnowman 18:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear historians: This old Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the page be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the requested move of the article Greater Romania are welcome here. Borsoka (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion here. RFC. Evensteven (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone! I was looking at Template:2014 Ferguson unrest and thought it was pretty crazy that there wasn't one for the Romanian Revolution. I've started one at User:Yaksar/Template:Romanian Revolution but before I put it into any article space I thought it would be good to get some help in fleshing it out more to make it more logically structured. If you want to help out, feel free to do so there, or discuss it on the talk page. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Treaty of Trianon I found the text below:

The treaty was dictated by the Allies rather than negotiated and the Hungarians had no option but to accept its terms.[11] The Hungarian delegation signed the treaty under protest

Aren't the above facts self-implied? As far as I know, after any military conflict the winners dictate the terms of the peace treaties to the losers (and don't negotiate with the defeated side when taking the decisions).

So, is it necessary to include the phrase above?

All comments here would be appreciated. Thank you, Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20th January 2015 is the 750th anniversary of the first English Parliament.[3] The article De Montfort's Parliament is being improved and further contributions would be welcome and beneficial to work it towards GA.

The BBC [4] are planning a "Democracy Day" of live events, discussions and debate, produced in partnership with the Speaker’s Office of the House of Commons, including broadcasts from inside Westminster. Whizz40 (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Civil War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. Anotherclown (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here (three consecutive nominations). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Louis, Dauphin of France, Duke of Burgundy to be moved to Louis, Duke of Burgundy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(timestamp may not be accurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three requested move discussions which concern this project have been started. They can be found at:

• Talk:SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt#Requested move 2 June 2015
• Talk:Schutzstaffel#Requested move 5 June 2015
• Talk:Sturmabteilung#Revamped format

BMK (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All comments, suggestions are welcome here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars/Apply; position focuses on focus on Chicago history, Catholic social justice studies, and Vincentian Studies (including French history during the Napoleonic Era).• Lingzhi♦(talk) 05:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Georgia isn't listed under the countries encompassed under the scope of this project. As the Wikipedia article states (having been changed from "a country in Weastern Asia") that it is transcontinental, shouldn't the history of Georgia be considered a relevant topic of this project as this implies it is partially european? Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Aardwolf A380 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A category discussion about People from the Elizabethan era, please see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I am reviewing Bozh for GA status and need a second opinion. If someone is willing to do that and ping me when done it would be much appreciated. The feedback page is here. LavaBaron (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All comments would be appreciated here. Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page has many issues, which I've outlined on its talk page and will not rant and rave about here. I am a WikiNoob, and I would like some assistance and direction in editing in order to turn this into a cohesive article on an interesting theory, rather than an edit war waiting to happen. A Sentient Sock (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an on-going debate about the gallery of personalities from the article Romanians. Any opinions are welcome at Talk:Romanians#What happened to the gallery?. Hahun (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone have a look at Draft:Protohistoric Aquitania? It's currently eligible for deletion given it hasn't been edited in a while. Thanks, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All comments would be highly appreciated here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin/archive2. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something of an impasse in this discussion Template talk:British colonial campaigns about whether or not the Troubles, and earlier Irish conflicts, should be listed in a template of British colonial campaigns. A wider variety of opinions on the matter would be most welcome! Gerrynobody (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I wish to join this project, what are the steps to joining? Do I just add my name to the list of members? Aman Ibn Jif (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion. In my opinion the notability of 'tsarist autocracy' is too weak. If considered otherwise, the article needs a huge overhaul to better reflect historiographical debates and viewpoints. 2001:1C02:1907:9500:6DC8:DB74:E72E:310D (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article Iazyges is within the frame of your project, and I have made some significant edits to it, kindly re-assess it. Thank you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All comments are appreciated here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several Ruthenian people categories have been nominated for possible renaming, merging or deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_10#Category:Ruthenian_princesses
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_11#Category:Ruthenian_women
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_12#Ruthenian_people_by_period
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_12#Ruthenian_people_by_descent

on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...may be of interest to the members of this project: [5]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism has been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 17#Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 10:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please feel free to contribute to this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_9#Category:Historic_counties_in_Moravia. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have instigated a discussion about this highly biased and OR driven article at Talk:British_war_crimes#Article_problems. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

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

The discussion about this can be found here.

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

Background

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

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

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

So far, 84 editors have joined.

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

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

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to widen a discussion of the title of the Gjon Kastrioti article. The issue is under discussion here if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  17:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Modern history#Image use is excessive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Rudolf Vrba 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. Catrìona (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Werner Mölders 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. Catrìona (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All comments are highly appreciated here: Talk:Origin of the Romanians#RfC: two maps. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All comments are appreciated here. Borsoka (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a Request-for-Comment open about restructuring the Origin of the Romanians article. Any comments or suggestions for improving the article would be greatly appreciated. Borsoka (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move request at Talk:Gothic Christianity that would benefit from your input. Please come and help. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  21:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Troubles to be moved to Northern Ireland conflict. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. --Scolaire (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:German-occupied Europe#Requested move 24 June 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Facts707 (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a Request-for-Comment open about restructuring the White Croats article. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article of interest to this project—Expulsion of Jews from Spain—has been proposed for merging from Alhambra decree. Your feedback would be welcome at the merge discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recently did a rather extensive removal of material at Walter Kuhn for WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE, and POV concerns. Walter Kuhn was a German academic who was involved in advising Nazi resettlement and ethnic plan plans during the war but afterwards became a recognized expert on the Ostsiedlung. Another editor disagrees with me and and has added back and even expanded many of these areas. I'd appreciate any independent sets of eyes who would have a look and see what they think.--Ermenrich (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place of whether to delete the article Race and intelligence, see [6]. NightHeron (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have recently found a conflict between sources on one matter regarding Old Serbia. I have made a deal with one admin that I shall not edit the article without prior community consensus/feedback. Other editors tagged have not been active on the page and are passive about it, therefore I would like to invite you to help out with this issue. I personally have little experience when we have some conflicting info. on the same subject. I believe that a fresh perspective would improve the article. [7] ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Báthory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For those that are interested in editing articles about historical figures or just ensuring the accuracy of articles about them (or appropriate tone in articles), see Talk:Elizabeth Báthory#Poor sourcing in, and accuracy of, this article. A permalink for it is here. It could use more eyes. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Battle of Austerlitz 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. buidhe 02:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Battle of Moscow 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. buidhe 01:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, because of an edit request on Talk:Liverpool by CaseyJones121974 I noticed that there seem to exist about two or three different claims about the duration of the siege of Liverpool by Prince Rupert in 1644. I'm not very good with history, but if anyone is interested, I've listed the first few sources I could find and their different claims at Talk:Liverpool#Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2020. Rummskartoffel (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New perspectives and old issues needs comments. Please join at the talk-page Talk:Germania. Sechinsic (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Rfc concerning the lede of French Revolution is under discussion at Talk:French Revolution#rfc_CF45697. Your feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! There is an article on Danish wikipedia, called Gesta Wulinensis ecclesiae pontificum [8].

There is practically no one reading "WikiProject European history", who knows of any notable document by that name (from what is now Poland, and from the Middle Ages)?

(There is practically no one who can see a reason for Wikipedia-English to have an article by that name?) Thank you in advance! 89.8.67.252 (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

Input wanted on Talk:Poland#First constitition?.

Thanks! François Robere (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Battle of Blenheim for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 02:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page Holy League (1684) seemed relatively important and severely lacking, so I have added a fair bit to improve it. I think that someone more knowledgeable than me should have a look and see if I have missed anything important, also I think it deserves a reassessment above stub class now. Thanks. Thepipemaster (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've released this article from Draft, and there is still plenty to do to expand and smooth it. Your assistance would be welcome at Liberation of France. There are also some sections on the Talk page that may give you ideas, or which you could contribute to. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed that Clandestine press of the French Resistance be renamed to Underground media in German-occupied France. Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Edict of Torda was an early and almost exceptional example of religious tolerance in early modern Europe. It sanctioned the existence of an antitrinitarian church in the eastern Hungarian kingdom. The article is a FAC and all comments are welcome on the review page. Borsoka (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, today I received an email telling me that nearly all of the scans of old books that are available online (at digital.ub.uni-duesseldorf.de) have been re-licensed under a PD / CC0 license by the University and State Library Düsseldorf.
Previously I had asked them why many of their scans of books in the public domain were published online with a "non-commercial" limitation in their licenses. If you have any idea where else to announce / advertise this new availability of their online material, please tell me or publicize it yourself. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ΟΥΤΙΣ, That's great news! However, since book contents are two-dimensional, there is no separate copyright for scanning them. Even before this switch it would have been possible to upload using ((PD-Art)) or ((PD-scan))[9]. (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my legal understanding too, Buidhe, even according to current German laws. But I have seen many online scans being hosted by various institutions that arbitrarily impose limitations on scans of public domain works. This often borders on copyfraud, but sometimes lazyness, misinformation or indifference might play a role, too.

I think it's better to ask them politely and make them withdraw these phony secondary licenses, when encountered, and will continue to do so. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. Lennart97 (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Roman–Persian Wars 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Hungarian Revolution of 1956 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. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiProject European 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 and your research on European history. The ingestion is comprised of 16 boxes and accounts for 1082 ships across 184 unique places of build from around the globe.

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 for the resources and encourage you to share our documents on Wikipedia.

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

Michael of Zahumlje has been nominated for a community 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. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly appreciate all comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)/archive3. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

An editor has requested for Recovered Territories to be merged into Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II. Since you had some involvement with Recovered Territories or Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so).

Further input is requested from all interested WikiProjects to establish consensus. Felix QW (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion at Talk:Czech Republic, proposing a rollback in reaction to edit warring by an IP-hopping anonymous user. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

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)[reply]

I have nominated Finnish Civil War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 06:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am Lead Coordinator at WikiProject History. we would welcome any collaboration, or joint discussions, or joint efforts with this WikIProject that might seem helpful. I hope anyone here will please feel free to offer any ideas, or any suggested areas or items for common effort, any time you may wish. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Talk:Earl#Split article? to give your opinion on whether text on the Scandinavian jarl should be moved to Jarl (title), which currently redirects to Earl. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated First Nagorno-Karabakh War 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. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Buidhe has nominated Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett 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) 20:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buidhe has nominated Inner German border 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) 10:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing the articles relating to the Scythians over the course of several months, and since most editors tend to favour splitting pages after they reach a certain size, I split two further pages, Iškuza and Scythia, covering the phases of Scythian history respectively in West Asia and in Europe, out of the main page covering the Scythians.

However, trying to split it has resulted into three articles, with both Iškuza and Scythia requiring large amounts of material regarding the role of the prior and subsequent histories of the Scythians in the creation and destruction of those states copied from each other and from the Scythians page to exist since they are both about immediately preceding/succeeding states created by the same continuous population group. And because Iškuza and Scythia both cover immediately preceding/succeeding but also partially overlapping parts of the history of the Scythians, multiple sections and sub-sections of each page covering the culture, population, external relations, etc of these states also had to be copied from the Scythians page (e.g. the "Background" sub-section and "Society" section in Scythia, and the "Origins," "Impact," and "Legacy" sections of Iškuza). Moreover, the Scythia page as it exists now also functions as a WP:Semi-duplicate, given that most of the information relating to this polity also is also the same basic information that is required on the Scythians page.

Given this resulting situation, I have started a merger proposal to resolve this issue, per WP:MERGEREASON: Overlap, Context, not because I support a merger for the sake of merging itself, which I do not favour, but because Iškuza and Scythia require too much context and the information on these pages is too intertwined with each other.

The problem is that, despite months having passed, the discussion for the merger proposal is still at a deadlock, with three users opposed to the merger, and three users (including myself) in favour of it. In this difficult situation, I have been advised to bring this issue to the various WikiProjects which are relevant to Scythians as a way to possibly resolve the deadlock, and all good faith assistance to reach a consensus would be much welcome. Antiquistik (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Buidhe has nominated Macedonia (terminology) 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) 03:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buidhe has nominated Macedonia (terminology) 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) 07:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buidhe has nominated Macedonia (terminology) 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) 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal that a new article on the Janissary Corps be merged into the pre-existing article Janissary. Any interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion. Constantine ✍ 17:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buidhe has nominated Regulamentul Organic 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) 16:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire)#Requested move 24 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raulois (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire)#Requested move 24 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raulois (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Louis, Duke of Burgundy#Requested move 26 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire)#Requested move 3 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Grand Duchy of Moscow#Requested move 19 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) 20:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

An Rfc on whether some minor figures in the battle should be included as commanders in the infobox is taking place here Talk:Battle_of_Kosovo#RfC_Should_Muzaka_and_Jonima_be_included_in_the_infobox?. Khirurg (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor figures" according to the user above, notable figures according to WP:RS bibliography. Botushali (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a neutral notification. (t · c) buidhe 07:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, with a few days now I have been having a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Wikiproject Norman history revival to decide the faith of a possible Wikipedia:WikiProject Norman history revival. It has been decided that rather than a revival of the project it become a taskforce and this project seems the most appropriate in my opinion.

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/Task_forces#Converting_existing_projects_to_task_forces suggests that I notify the parent project before any movement. ☘️ King ᚺᛒ ☘️ Talk, Guestbook 12:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please help improve a promising draft at Draft:23 March 1933 Reichstag speech, using reliable sources. Fences&Windows 13:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and windows it's a notable topic but if I were working on it I would have to start from scratch because of the need to cite wp:rs secondary sources. (t · c) buidhe 15:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. Reading it again, the draft currently platforms Hitler without any critique or analysis. Yikes. Fences&Windows 16:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(non-automated message) Greetings to all members of WP:EH! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users of this WikiProject! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia#Requested move 15 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ionian Revolt 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. Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Greco-Persian Wars#Requested move 28 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Western Allied spring 1945 campaign in Germany#Requested move 1 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]