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 1 |
I am currently on vacation so don't have high speed internet and all AWB stuff, but if you would like I can set up the article assessment and project tag stuff when I get back home (should be Dec. 28-29 when I can sit down and do that). I have done it before and while I am doing that I can help clean up some of the categories as well. However, before then it would be nice to figure out what image we want to use on the Project banners. It should be something distinctive. For example, when we were looking at the WP:WPASK stuff we decided to pick the Sutton Hoo helmet. If there is no distinct crest for Dacia, then we need an image that is distinct, Sadads ( talk) 18:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
We need to define the scope a little more precisely to effectively tag for the project. Do we include Thracia and all it's related topics? etc. Sadads ( talk) 20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I've just assessed and rated all the Dacia articles by quality and importance. Bine Mai 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The articles within our subject get marked with questionable notability which I find very subjective and detrimental. I opened a discussion here. You guys can pitch in and share your thoughts and experience.-- Codrinb ( talk) 16:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I've made a new userbox for who is interested. Bine Mai 22:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Code | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|
{{ User:Bine Mai/Burebista}} |
|
Plese add the Template:Dacian cities under the form {{Dacian cities}} to new articles about Dacian cities. Thank you. Bine Mai 22:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Was Battle of Gatae actually a battle discussed by historians? If so, does anyone have some sources that can helps us determine the basic facts of where this battle fits in in the history and if Wikipedia should be discussing it? Sadads ( talk) 02:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, do we really believe that Talk:Kunsthistorisches Museum is in our scope? If so, then it seems that the project has gotten broader then I had thought, Sadads ( talk) 06:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Most bots need a discussion with approvals for the categories to be used in automated article tagging. Please review this proposed category list, add anything missing and/or provide feedback and suggestions. Thanks!-- Codrin.B ( talk) 03:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I added more functionality and article categories in the {{ WikiProject Dacia}}. I think it will help a lot. Please take a look and provide feedback.-- Codrin.B ( talk) 03:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Dacian script is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dacian script 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 good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Anonimu ( talk) 23:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed the removal in purpose of the {{ WikiProject Dacia}} from very relevant articles, as here and here from users who seem very hostile to the project for whatever reasons. Some of them were invited in good faith to the project, based on their involvement with the subject. Apparently it cannot be reported as vandalism. Please report such issues here and bring suggestions and ideas to the table. Those involved in removals are of course invited to this conversation as well. -- Codrin.B ( talk) 16:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi all! I am planning to move the religion, occupations, culture, language sections from Dacia to the Dacians article since I think it pertains to the people not the geographical region. It is also consistent with the Thrace/ Thracians and Illyria/ Illyrians, as well as the tree in Category:Dacians and Category:Thracians. The Dacians article also has Dacians#Religion and language sections which are just stubs. Anyone who has objections or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! -- Codrin.B ( talk) 17:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Given the highly controversial theories regarding this subject, the amount of edit wars and the risk for conflict, I kindly suggest the use a user space or of the WikiProject Dacia drafts space, until the article is ready for prime time and a consensus is reached. You can certainly ask for reviews at the user/draft space. Thanks for your hard work and continued cooperation.-- Codrin.B ( talk) 19:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There have been a number of conflicts around the recent edits on Costoboci, Carpi (people) and the Map of Roman Empire, in connection with original research, neutrality, unreliable sources and possible fringe theories like the Dacian-Baltic connection. Fragments of the conversations are also scattered throught user pages, including User_talk:Andrei_nacu, User_talk:EraNavigator, User_talk:Codrinb, User_talk:Daizus and User_talk:Hxseek. Please provide your input on the corresponding article talk pages: Talk:Costoboci, Talk:Carpi (people), Talk:Dacian language, commons:File_talk:Roman_Empire_125.png. Thanks! Looking forward for a fruitful collaboration. -- Codrin.B ( talk) 21:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The template now covering the "Neutral Point of View" policy of this WikiProject is a sham, and a perfect example in manipulative equivocation. While announcing that it rejects Protochronism (at long last, some common sense), it currently reads: "It equally wishes to avoid Anti-Romanian or Anti-Dacian agendas, anti-Protochronistic aggressiveness, policing and labeling or the attempts to minimize or remove Dacians from history partially or completely. The term Dacology should not be considered synonymous with Dacoman, as it is not more dirty than the terms Thracology and Egyptology, and doesn't imply that the Dacian culture is equal or greater or more important in any way than the Roman, Greek or Egyptian cultures." This is insulting a reader's intelligence, since it claims that the universal ridiculing of Protochronist propaganda in outside sources is somehow wrong or excessive, and amounting to an attempt at destroying Romania's supposedly rich Dacian heritage - never mind that it suggests all those who do not share the pro-Dacian agenda that is implicitly advertised here are "anti-Romanian"! What's more, Codrinb has since created a WP:POVFORK of Protochronism, under the title Dacology - he references that with personal webpages, books from the 1980s and so on, in an attempt to give the concept more credibility than it ever has, and to leave as much room as possible for enhancing the credibility of Protochronists who label themselves "Dacologues". For the "prevalence" of the term, I advise cursory searches of "Dacology" and "Dacologie" around Google Books etc. - it is marginally used in a scholarly context, but prominent in Protochronist or national communist propaganda.
For these reasons and many more, I view this wikiproject with acute distaste. I urge all good-faith participants to review the agenda behind such statements, and, in case this project will survive in time, to prevent it becoming a tool for fringe ideology supported by sophistry. The application of wikipedia policies in regard to content makes all such faux disclaimers unwarranted. Dahn ( talk) 14:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Codrin, stop identifying yourself with other members of this wiki-project. Your Dacian-biased tendecies will never be constructive for Dacia-related articles. Please be a gentleman and renounce the leadership of the wiki-project before you'll emabarass all the other honest and neutral contributors. Some of your Dacomanic samples ( User_talk:Codrinb):
Someone (would be interesting to know who) named spiders and butterflies after Dacian towns and now we have a collision with Entomologists :-) Take a look here: Talk:Napoca#Napoca disambig for an amusing conversation. For those who didn't know, Napoca is actually a jumping spider in Israel :-) I believe these Dacian towns deserve the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC pages as they are obviously the primary topic. If you want to write an article about a certain town, and the name is used by a butterfly, please write the article in your user space or WikiProject Dacia drafts space. In other words, you can create User:YOU/Drobeta or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dacia/Drafts/Drobeta. If they collide with with more topics, which seem more important, we need to use names like Zeugma (ancient city), Zeugma (Dacia) and so on. In this case there is already a Zeugma (city) which is ancient, so Zeugma (ancient city) is not a good idea. But Zeugma (city) will probably need to end up in Zeugma (Commagene) if we will create Zeugma (Dacia). We also need disambiguation pages.-- Codrin.B ( talk) 21:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys! How do you see the proper usage of {{ Dacia-stub}}? When I created this stub, I had the following kind of articles in my view for the scope: Dacian tows, tribes, kings etc, Dacian archaeology, culture, language etc. Since there are disputes whether or not Dacians and Getae are the same people or not (main stream and ancient source, indicate they are), the articles related to Getae are also in the scope of this stub. A similar situation is with Moesi, a Daco-Thracian tribe. Now, all the articles that me or other members of WP:DACIA marked with this stub, might not mention the word Dacia (although many do), but we know that those archaeologists or museums for examples have a lot to do with Dacia and at least a section of the article will benefit from the expansion in that direction, hence the stub. I think the Dacia-related stubs cannot be viewed in the narrow sense of: "geography of Dacia" (which is not even properly known as far as borders, being a lose term for a large area in Eastern Europe) or "is this museum in Dacia?", which are ridiculous. In other words, in my view, any article that fits in the Category:Dacia tree, should fit the bill for this stub.
There is also the topic of redirects with {{ R with possibilities}}, a special case, where I believe an exception can be made to the rule of not adding stubs to redirects. The suggestion of using stubs is clearly made in the description of this special type of redirect and I believe you should treat it as an exception case in your stub sorting procedures. It is logical to present a redirects with {{ R with possibilities}} as a possible article for expansion. In the case of WP:DACIA, we make use of such redirects for ancient cities that redirect to the ancient history section of modern city (ex. Drobeta (ancient city), Napoca (ancient city) etc.) As part of our project we plan to expand the ancient history sections of the modern cities article, to the point where, the content will "overflow" naturally into the redirects with ancient city names. Hence, we want to have the stubs there to mark that, invite collaborators and speed up the process. I believe these kind of scenarios were in the mind of those who created {{ R with possibilities}}.
Please let me know what do you guys think. There is also a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Problem_with_.7B.7BDacia-stub.7D.7D, where we can hopefully clarify this matter and reach consensus on the proper usage.-- Codrin.B ( talk) 19:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The geographic scope of this Wikiproject doesn't seem limited to Romania. The scope given is "Dacia (at Burebista's time) plus Moesia and Scythia Minor". That would include areas of Bulgaria, Hungary, the Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, Serbia and the Ukraine. I am not certain if the articles should even mention Dacians, since the Getae, the Moesi, and to a lesser extent the Thracians are of interest to the Wikiproject. Museums which cover related artifacts may or may not qualify. The scope doesn't mention them.
I fully agree on not marking common redirects as stubs. "stub", "start", "B", etch. are assesment evaluations of where an article currently stands. They should not serve as to do lists. "Non-article pages, such as disambiguation pages, categories, templates, talk pages, and redirects, are not regarded as stubs." Dimadick ( talk) 16:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome the new members, User:RomânescEsteLatin and User:Teogon! Please let us know your areas of interest and expertise. As you can tell from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia/Tasks lists, your help is so much needed! Looking forward to collaborate on great articles! -- Codrin.B ( talk) 20:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys! I've been working recently on the Helmet of Coţofeneşti. Please see if you can give a hand to review it and maybe we can get WP:DYK for it and maybe make it WP:GOOD. Regards! -- Codrin.B ( talk) 03:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys! I've been working recently on the Ziridava. Please see if you can give a hand to review it and maybe we can get WP:DYK for it and maybe make it WP:GOOD. -- Codrin.B ( talk) 03:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like both the Helmet of Cotofenesti and Ziridava were considered too late for DYK ... Let's try with the Helmet of Iron Gates, but working on this draft instead and then pasting the 5x work. I just got some new high res pictures from the museum in Detroit. -- Codrin.B ( talk) 17:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Done Boldwin, thanks a lot for your great contributions to Dacian Draco and helping the article get a WP:DYK. It made it to DYK on April 7, 2011. See article views. -- Codrin.B ( talk) 19:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Are we sure all of these helmets are the Helmet of Agighiol? Or maybe some are pictures of the Helmet of Peretu? See here also: Getian Helmets. Just wondering. Thoughts? -- Codrin.B ( talk) 17:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I am archiving some descriptions from National Museum Bucharest:
Boldwin ( talk) 14:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am not sure anymore. Left side seems to have the same motif. In the pictures we uploaded, based on available information, the left side doesn’t offer any clue since the motif is the same in all of these pictures)
But,
Portile de Fier is damaged, so we do not have any upload of it. Agighiol seems to have some damages on the right front head. At this moment, for me, all the uploaded ones are Peretu helmets, if the picture we see in MNIR is right Boldwin ( talk) 15:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC) But, the one from flickr also has an additional version. See [11] We are sure, all of them are Getic, but I will try to find more details Boldwin ( talk) 03:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I created a Dacian bracelets page on Commons to better organize, categorize and show case all the bracelet pictures. Check it out and please contribute more knowledge. -- Codrin.B ( talk) 18:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
... and so on CristianChirita ( talk) 22:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Could someone help with an article for the Dacian Umbo?
The anthropomorphic phalera (Palatul Sutu Dacian Silver 2011) is a Phalera (military decoration) found at Bucuresti Herastrau. Sarbu V. (2004) has its picture at Fig. 76 – 3, page 202 in Les Thraces entre les Carpates,les Balkans et la Mer Noire(s.V i.Hr.-I d.Hr.) Editura Istros ISBN 973-9469-48-5 Boldwin ( talk) 17:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Done Boldwin, thank you sooo much for your great contributions to Dacian bracelets and congratulations for the WP:DYK! It made it to DYK on August 11, 2011. See article views. -- Codrin.B ( talk) 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I traveled around Romania for a few weeks in September and took a bunch of pictures, some related to Dacia. Here are some of them: commons:Category:Sarmizegetusa Regia, commons:Category:Costesti Cetatuie Dacian Fortress, commons:Category:Aiud History Museum, commons:Category:Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, commons:Category:Apulum, commons:Category:Rosia Montana Roman Gold Mines. Would need everyone's help to further categorize them and use them in articles. Thanks and regards! -- Codrin.B ( talk) 19:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I added several stubs of Dacian fortresses. Many of them don't have a proper name but they should be added to the "Ancient Dacian cities" box. -- Best regards, Saturnian ( talk) 16:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I just started the draft for the List of Dacian towns and fortresses. Looking forward for your help and suggestions. What do you think we should have on the columns? -- Codrin.B ( talk) 03:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Help National Museum of the Union (draft) get WP:DYK by adding 5x content by December 1st, 2011-- Codrin.B ( talk) 18:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
We need everyones help to salvage Roman Dacia article. Please take a look at Talk:Roman Dacia#Copyright violations / plagiarism for the issues. -- Codrin.B ( talk) 16:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
... and happy holidays! -- Codrin.B ( talk) 22:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Please state your opinion if you wish about the primary topic usage in Dacia (disambiguation) per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Linking to a primary topic.-- Codrin.B ( talk) 17:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
More to come next days CristianChirita ( talk) 22:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
http://tourvirtuale.museicapitolini.org/#/en courtyard on the floorplan http://en.museicapitolini.org/percorsi/percorsi_per_sale/museo_del_palazzo_dei_conservatori/cortile
CristianChirita ( talk) 10:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
For those interested, Tyrida was marked for speedy deletion.-- Codrin.B ( talk) 20:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
For those interested, there is a request for deletion on Template:Infobox dava, currently used in 91 articles on Dacian cities/fortresses.-- Codrin.B ( talk) 15:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
For those interested, there is a request for deletion on Template:Infobox castrum, currently used in articles on Roman castra.-- Codrin.B ( talk) 15:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Please express your opinion for the following disagreement:
Lothar Klaic ( talk) 18:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a problem with this headword. The move, if it's decided one be made, will require some juggling. Please see Talk:Phineas#Phineas > Phineus. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 13:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Historic roads and Roman roads are up for a move. Please see Talk:Roman roads. Simply south.... .. always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 16:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Taking into account the destructive behaviour of Borsoka against this Project and generally against the History of Romanians, I propose you, the members of this Project, to expel him from the Project.
Please check User:Borsoka's edits and then vote below. -- Saturnian ( talk) 08:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
At Roman Empire (which this project has bannered), we are seeking opinions about how to fill the "type of government" slot in the infobox. There is a proposal to label it an empire. Cynwolfe ( talk) 13:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor (who is not a member of this project) has recently added multiple project banners to Talk:History of Vojvodina, including this one. Please feel free to remove it of it is not within this project's scope. See this section of the talk page for further background. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Lukovit-wiki.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 07:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Please express your opinions here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Romanian_words_of_possible_Dacian_origin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.213.79 ( talk) 20:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Your attention is drawn to Talk:History_of_Vojvodina#Request_For_Comment_re:_WikiProject_Banners_on_this_page. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I want to share with you a stream of pictures taken at a recent reenactment festival. I hope you will enjoy! -- Regards, Saturnian ( talk) 12:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The twelve word stub at Desudaba has lain unexpanded for almost three years, yet Codrinb listed it as being of mid importance to this project. Codrinb, who created it with many empty sections, has not returned to it. Does someone else think that it is worth the effort, or was the initial ranking too high? -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
12:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hi all, I wanted to let you know that we now have access to the Loeb Classic Library via a donation to the The Wikipedia Library. Sign up at Wikipedia:Loeb! Sadads ( talk) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I've made a requested move to move all the drafts hidden away here to draftspace. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dacia/Drafts/Angustia. My suggestion is that every page be tagged with the project and if the draft parameter is turned on, it'll be just as easy to find these within Category:NA-Class Dacia articles or Category:Draft-Class Dacia articles if that's created. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia/Drafts/Media (castra): the article linked to is no longer a draft so the link is a double redirect. The subpage either needs fixing or deleting. I found it using WPCleaner and felt it better to raise the issue on your talk page in case there were any pressing need to leave it alone. Thanks — Iadmc ♫ talk 08:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Dacia
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 14:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
== Welcome to WikiProject Dacia ==
Let's help the forgotten or little known Dacian history reach the world!
I've put new images on MNIR. Any help with descriptions and categories will be appreciated.
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.
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.
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 07:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
All comments are appreciated here. Borsoka ( talk) 05:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Marcus Aurelius; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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 "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Merge inactive history WikiProjects. – Joe ( talk) 09:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)