Portal talk:History/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Improvement Drive

The following history topics are currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive: History of chemistry, Napoleonic Wars, Constantinople]], History and Spice trade.You can support these articles with your vote if you want them to be improved!--Fenice 11:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Yet another improvement drive

The article History of Southeast Asia is currently a candidate for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. You can support the nomination with your vote there. __earth (Talk) 17:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Need volunteers to maintain portal

Why hasn't this been updated in so long? We need volunteers to maintain this portal. We especially need a featured section that isn't permanently Julius Caesar.

I can help a little.

Any volunteers?

Nick 02:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed the selected article section to Italian Renaissance! Cheers!
Nick 10:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


You know when a portal is in decay when the "requests" are all blue links :) --Technosphere83 12:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Core topics -- Version 1.0

Hello. I'm part of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics working toward a release version of Wikipedia (on paper or CD).

If you're interested in helping, these are some related articles we plan to include:

If you think these are ready, please let us know. You can see our proposed initial quality standards or learn more about the overall project.

Thanks. Maurreen 21:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles

I noticed that this portal puts the featured articles into subpages such as, Portal:History/Featured article/April, 2006. In March, I added to my watchlist all the portal pages that are linked on the Main Page and their subpages (linked with the small "edit" buttons), to monitor for vandalism. I just now noticed the monthly featured article subpage was different than the one I put on my watchlist in March. Because of that, vandalism to Portal:History/Featured article/April, 2006 went unnoticed for 24 hours. I'd rather not have to come back each month to add new subpages, so would anyone object if the featured article stay in Portal:History/Featured article and not further subpages? Once they are archived, then I'm fine with moving them into the dated subpages. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone is prepared to undertake this extra maintenance, then no. This sort of rotational/queue system, used also on the Main Page, is now common on portals. Perhaps the only way to mitigate this is to semiprotect the subpages on the main portals - something I've done in several places because I'm usually the only one monitoring them and I can't do that 24/7.--cj | talk 04:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at how Current events are managed. That's what I had in mind, where at the end of the month they move it to the monthly archive page. I don't have to go back at the beginning of each month and readd the Current events page to my watchlist. Maybe it's not the best solution for the portals, though. I think all the small "edit" links are problematic and too tempting to vandals. Semiprotection could work in this case. I looked over the past month's edit history for Portal:History, as an example, and all the anonymous edits appear to be vandalism. Though on Portal:Geography, there were two anons. that added interwiki links. -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll just add that the History portal seems to be vandalized much more than any of the others, surely for the same reason that articles like French Revolution are constant targets. It seems to relate to what's on the school syllabus. Maybe sprotect is warranted in such cases of excessive vandalism, as the history portal seems to be. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

At this moment, the short article main page on Yagan concludes with the following line: "To date, the head remains unburied. later on he would be ass raped by a chinese spider monkey." I am supposing that this was vandalism.

Renaming "History of the world" to "Human History"

Please discuss and vote at Talk:History_of_the_world#Name_ambiguity Thank you, __ Maysara 14:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

June selections

FYI, the selected article and selected picture need to be chosen for June. I will check back later today, and if selections still need to be made, I'll do them. But, I normally haven't been involved with this portal. -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

These are taken care of for June. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

New Wikiproject: creating an historical atlas and improving historical maps

Perhaps such a project already exists. If not, then i hereby ask people who want to join to send me a message.

At the moment i am trying to make maps using GIMP. I produced one map ( see Lucius Paullus), but the problem is that i can't change colours using GIMP.

I like to make maps where texts link to Wikipedia articles, just like the map of Germany in the 2006_FIFA_World_Cup article.

I want to create maps that all link to sources (atlases and books) and give them a quality tag when the map is good. Also, i like to make alternative maps in order to show difference of opinion about the borders of countries and different ways of portraiting a certain historical situation. Theme maps could be made showing the aproximate size of the populations, religions, official religions, the presence of all kinds of culture.

An idea is to make maps for statesmen and generals, to show how the borders of countries changed and what famous conquests and battles occurred during throughout their career.

The great thing about accurate maps is that they could be more accesible then a text and that it is simpler to get factual accuracy. In a text, the words can always be in a different order. The Geographical order is more solid.

I hope to get to some kind of organization within the project. Many projects on Wikipedia failed, because of the lack of discipline of the contributors. For me discipline is only a method to create quality, i don't have any political sympathy towards it.--Daanschr 10:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Where to nominate articles to be selected

What page do I go to nominate an article? I would like History of Louisville, Kentucky to be considered. It is already a "good" article. Thanks. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 17:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Definition of History

The 'interpretation of records' is Historiography, not History. History is the interpretation of past events. Could an educated administrator please change it? I just fixed it. (I had to comment out the intro from the main page to do it. Sorry about that.) --Ashfire908 18:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Colour scheme

Could we get a different colour scheme to the page? Seems a bit distasteful IMHO. Sincerely, JDR 21:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I second that notion - Ravedave 14:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm too in favour of a change. Any ideas on what colour should be used? Scoo 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) I agree, but I have no clue as to what the colour should be. I love all. 10:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC) How about greenFranco 04:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request: History of Milton Keynes

I would welcome peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Milton Keynes/archive1, please - ideally to make FA on the History portal on 23 January 2007, 40 years after designation. --Concrete Cowboy 22:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

History of Milton Keynes has achieved GA. Further help with copyediting and "compelling writing" to make FAC would be welcome. A History Project article assessment would also be welcome. --Concrete Cowboy 12:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request: Indonesian War of Independence

I would like some advice on Wikipedia:Peer review/Indonesian War of Independence/archive1. Would like to pursue GA and then FA. Any advice would be much appreciated. --Merbabu 13:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Names of foreign rulers on Wilkipedia History pages I wonder why authors of history pages (in English) call many foreign rulers and warlords by English names? Even if their Christian names have English equivalent, it is proper (and probably politically correct) to give their native names. That will greatly reduce the number of Spaniards, Hungarians, Byzantines and other foreigners called John or Peter or Henry. In my humble opinion, this rule should be applied throughout Wilkipedia History section. If foreign names are not acceptable to the authors, why not call all foreigners Joe Bob or something?Vitoldus44 22:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review for Song Dynasty

Hello, I've recently done a lot of research and posted a lot of info to beef up the Song Dynasty of China article. If someone would like to peer review and give feedback, please do so! Wikipedia:Peer review/Song Dynasty Thanks, --PericlesofAthens 04:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Old Style and New Style dates" problem

The article on Old Style and New Style dates seems quite a problem at the moment, very muddled, awkward and biased. Since it is a ref point for many other history articles, it might be worth improving as a priority. --mervyn 09:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point...I agree. Jmlk17 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Industrial Development in the Ameran West

I have been considering creating one or more articles about the development of infrastructure and industry in the colonizing period of the American West, ie bridges, roads, mills, mining, lumber, production of goods and textiles. Very broad topic. Can someone point me to existing articles/categories that may be related? Anyone have any other approach to this info? Best wishes. WBardwin 20:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Whew! That is quite a potential workload. You might want to narrow it down a bit first. For example, try manufacturing first, followed by factories and then production of goods and textiles. try and keep them connected so it stays in a pretty decent lineup, and pretty close. It's late at night here, and I hope that is making sense! Jmlk17 08:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Are there any special guidelines on how the first sentence of an article called "History of ..." should be written? I would be very grateful for any indications. Itsmejudith 22:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is a common sense sort of thing. I may be wrong however. I think that if the article gets its point across and is well-written, it is all okay. Jmlk17 06:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject History

Just wanted to post a comment here about Wikipedia:WikiProject History. J. D. Redding 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Are you a historian, i.e. one who studies and writes history, and who has a keen interest in writing outstanding articles? Join our fine group by adding the following:

[[Category:Wikipedian historians]] for the bottom of your user page. Ancheta Wis 23:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Edict of Worms" article deletion?

The article "Edict of Worms" has, for the most part, been merged with the articles "Martin Luther" and "Diet of Worms." I believe it should be nominated for deletion or substantially added on to. Franco 17:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Have at it :). Be bold!!! Jmlk17 19:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
This merge has been done, yet still appears in the "Things you can do" box. Can someone tell a newcomer: a) how the to-do suggestions are updated in this box? and b) where can be found a longer list of history-related merges? (I know where the comprehensive merge list is.) Hoping to help more if I can be pointed in the right direction. Hult041956 21:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Go to the Portal:History/Things you can do. If there isn't a link to the subpage in question, the easiest way to find out the specific title is to hit the "edit" button, and just remove the editing-related bits of the url. I'd remove the completed task it myself, but I don't want to steal your thunder :) Parsecboy 00:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, Parsec. Hult041956 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC on a content dispute in History section of the India page

Hi, This probably isn't the right place to advertise this RfC, but since we haven't had too many responses, I am posting on more distant sites. The RfC itself is posted here. Since both statements, the original poster's and mine, in response, are long, you might want to skim through them first. Any help, by way of comments, will be appreciated. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Declarations of war during World War II

Declaration_of_war#Declarations_of_war_during_World_War_II is very faulty (the UK hardly declared war on Finland twice [December 6/7 1941], Nazi Germany did not declare war on the Soviet Union...). Can someone overhaul the entire list pls? --KnightMove 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Assistance needed with Rosewood massacre sources

I recently worked on the Rosewood massacre article. I rewrote much of it based on two sources, which I know is not enough. However, in this instance when survivors of a violent and intimidating act did not have their stories recorded until 75 years later, it is difficult to find sources at all. One of the sources is actually the most conclusive study done on the topic, and I leaned on that very heavily. If not for lack of sources, I think the article could reach at least a B class status, and probably should be rated much higher, or featured. Any tips you can give me or assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. --Moni3 14:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Expert editors for a content dispute in history

Hi, I need some help on what to do next in a content dispute on the Talk:India page, where a recent RfC was concluded between two disputants, user:Rueben lys and I (user:Fowler&fowler). The dispute was about whether certain topics (in the history of the Indian independence movement) were notable for inclusion in the highly compressed history section in the FA India. The history section there has been fairly stable for over a year now, and has exactly two sentences devoted to the Indian independence movement. There is some sympathy for expanding the history section, which perhaps would allow another two to four sentences for the Indian independence movement (i.e. a total of four to six sentences). The dispute is about what other topics merit inclusion in this slightly expanded sub-section. (The statements in the RfC were both long, so you might want to skim through them first.) Here is my statement in the RfC: Statement by Fowler&fowler]] and here is Rueben lys's Statement. The RfC resulted in seven comments (not including those by user:Rueben lys himself); of these, five (see: Comment by Doldrums, Comments by John Kenney, Comments by Abecedare, Comments by Sundar, Comments by Hornplease) were supportive of my position, and two (See: Comment by Sarvagnya, and Comments by Lara bran) that were supportive of user:Rueben lys's position. user:Rueben lys now says that while I have made the case that his topics (for inclusion in the history section) do not get coverage in reliable sources, I have yet to show that they are not regarded to be notable by my sources. I am at the point in this entire process, where I'm fast losing patience and where I feel that I have made an effort to be both clear and logical; in contrast I feel user:Rueben lys has been unfocused (see his long string of comments with eight sub-sections here) and difficult to pin down. I suggested to user:Rueben lys that we consider a second RfC on WikiProject History where, hopefully, some expert editors will be able to weigh in on the evidence. Although he agreed at first, he now says that he would prefer to have the RfC on WikiProject India. Since the first RfC had already been advertised on WikiProject India, I don't see how a second one will help. Could someone please help me with some guidelines? Wikipedia has to have some expert editors in History. How can I find them? And how and where do I have an RfC in order that the experts can weigh in; otherwise, I see a Featured Article – India – becoming the object of highly idiosyncratic edits, well-meaning though they might be. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture

Given that "This week's featured picture" has been up for a month now, do you think someone could go ahead and change it? I would myself, but I don't know if there's already a designated replacement, or a formal selection process, or anything like that. Parsecboy 17:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea that this is a weekly picture (and article) is brand new, from a very recent edit. Until then, it had just been "Featured picture". Is there a shared committment to changing these more often? Question to long-standing contributors: where is this discussion (i.e., selection of featured article and picture) held? Hult041956 17:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I assumed that since the subpage stated it was a weekly picture, then it would be changed weekly. I could be wrong. If it is decided to not change it, then the subpage needs to be fixed so it doesn't give that false impression. Parsecboy 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah! I don't know either. It does appear we've missed the schedule in any case. Perhaps some long-time contributors can educate us on what's intended or conventional for this portal page. Hult041956 20:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on the featured picture archives, there actually doesn't seem to be a problem. It's got images scheduled through December. I guess all that needs to be done is change it from weekly image to monthly. Case closed, it seems. Parsecboy 21:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I just changed these back to "Featured article" and "Featured picture". Let's leave them like that (non-committed) till there's a recurring (monthly, weekly, fortnightly, semi-annually) process that stays on schedule. Hult041956 13:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I made changed them to "weekly". How about this; on Monday 22 I'll change the pic and article and I'll change the heading to "weekly" every Monday me or someone else will change the pic and article--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 18:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been suggestions on the correct page for suggestions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:History/Featured_picture/Suggest) for a long time now, and nobody seems to comment or anything. I am adding a great picture to at least change it. I figured that it could remain for November as there are only 5 days left in October. Monsieurdl 16:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Cash and carry

The article on Cash and carry covers both the economic wholesale term and the Cash & carry program used by FDR to placate isolationists while helping Britain and France in WWII. These are totally different concepts yet on they are on the same article. I was wondering if anyone could split them and make a disambiguation page? I don't know how disambiguation pages work. Konamaiki 04:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture for November

We have a suggestion page for a featured picture, and yet nobody utilizes it. Nobody posted anything with regards to comments, nobody had anything to say here about my addition, and then all of a sudden like a shot the picture dissapears after almost 2 weeks. No wonder no one regularly contributes here- I find it to be very odd behavior. Does anyone even care to discuss anything around here? Monsieurdl 22:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems featured pictures and featured articles get queued up on the "Archive" page rather than the "Suggest" page. Odd, as the word archive doesn't suggest the future, at least to me. But that seems to be the case. Also, it looks like your fenestration pic is due to come up in Nov. (That's any minute now.) Hult041956 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a suggest page, always has been, and yet nobody bothers to suggest anything or respond to anything posted there. It seems Feydey just puts all these pictures in slots and never says word one about them or acknowledges any talk page entries. That doesn't seem to me like an effort at collaboration... at least others like Phoenix-wiki and John Carter talk to people. Monsieurdl 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A) There are hardly any suggestions over the years, b) the suggestions given are not actually "Featured pictures" c) in October - December 2006 no one changed the FP and I stepped in and started adding new pics to avoid red links. Suggestions are of course always welcome. P.S. I have 2,469 pages on my watchlist and cannot check every new discussion on article talk pages, the best way to reach me is my talk page. Best, feydey 00:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I just didn't understand because if you had taken the time to change the picture, I thought you would have checked the Talk page. I can understand avoiding the red links, which makes sense, but I can't understand why my suggestion is out to February, 2008 instead of just moving the others back another month. I'll just chalk this one up as a futile effort and aid elsewhere, no problem. I'm not going to get too worked up about it as Wikipedia is a very, very large place. Good luck. Monsieurdl 00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Favourite

All help with this new article appreciated Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated help

Hello i am a fellow historian and i have recently been in an edit war on the psychohistory page because i believe the single person who is watching over the page really is not allowing the page to express exactly how far out of the mainstream and unpopular psychohistory is, in other words he is presenting it as an established well thought of science. one look at the graph on the page should show you how wrong he is. -ishmaelblues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishmaelblues (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

History vs. genealogy

I have written an essay titled History vs. genealogy, dealing with what I believe to be one of the great problems with how history is dealt with on Wikipedia. I would very much appreciate comments. Lampman Talk to me! 16:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Temple of Madinat Habu

The Temple of Medinat Habu is one of the largest memorial Temples in Egypt. It measures 320m in length (east to west) and about 200m in width (north to south). It was built to commemorate Ramses III, after his death, by orders of the King himself. A huge mud brick enclosure wall surrounds the Temple. This building basically consists of a huge gate, which takes the shape of a Syrian fort, and is decorated with battle scenes of the King’s wars in Syria. After accessing the gate there is a shrine, which dates back to the 18th Dynasty, on the right hand side. There is also a wide-open court that leads to a huge pylon, which has both towers decorated with battle scenes. On one tower the King, wearing the red crown with his “Ka” or “double”, smiting his enemies in front of Re-Horakhty. On the other tower, the King is represented with the red crown of Lower Egypt, smiting his enemies in front of the God Amon Ra. One of the most wonderful scenes engraved on the back of the southern tower, is the oxen hunt, which depicts Ramses III, leading his chariot, hunting wild oxen. Here you will notice that the sculptor was very skilful in showing the pain of the wounded animals. The 1st open court measures 42m long by 33m wide. Its walls are decorated with battle scenes fought against the Syrians and the Libyans. The 2nd courtyard (42m long by 38m wide) was converted into a basilica in the early Christian times, but there are scenes representing religious ceremonies, especially the festival of the Gods Sokker (also spelt Sokar) and Min. Other scenes represent the King, with the priests, making offerings to various deities. The 1st Hypostyle is badly damaged, probably by an earthquake in 27 B.C. It contained 24 columns in 6 rows, surrounded by 16 chapels: 8 to the right and 8 to the left. Among the most important shrines on the right side are the first one, which was dedicated to King Ramses III, chapel number 2, which was dedicated to the God Ptah, chapel number 4, which was consecrated for the boat of the God Sokker, and chapel number 7 which was dedicated to the sacred boat of the God Amon Ra. The chapels on the left side were dedicated to storing the utensils of the Temples, except for chapel number 14, which was dedicated to the sacred boat of King Ramses II, and chapel number15, which was dedicated to the divine boat of the God Montho. The 2nd Hypostyle hall contains 8 papyrus columns in 2 rows. The 3rd Hypostyle hall is similar to the 2nd Hypostyle hall and its ceiling was supported by 8 columns in 2 rows. At the end of this hypostyle hall there are three entrances, the one in the centre leads to the sanctuary where the sacred boat of Amon Ra was placed, the one to the right side leads to the chapel of the God Khonso while the one of the left side leads to the chapel of the Goddess Mut. The Sanctuary at the end of the Temple consists of 3 chapels as mentioned before; it was dedicated to the “Triad of Thebes”, and was surrounded by many side chambers.mor.... http://www.hamdey.php0h.com/ http://www.hamdey.php0h.com/LuxorServices.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamdey2 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Early modern age

Could we have portal Early modern age for european history beetwen 15. and 19. century?--Vojvodaeist 11:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wehrmacht warcrimes

Where is the right place to add Wehrmacht warcrime examples during the occupation of Poland? User:Molobo added a number of massacre sections to various articles about Polish communities (eg Wieruszów County, Gmina Siennica, Gmina Ryczywół, Piątek, Łódź Voivodeship, Kłecko, Trzebinia, Gmina Aleksandrów, Lublin Voivodeship). In these articles, the massacre section is the only history-related section and thus has an undue weight. Also, eg Wieruszow County was founded only long after the resp. time period. Yet, the Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) article is maybe too general to include the massacres. Any suggestions? Skäpperöd (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There are separate articles for War crimes of the Wehrmacht and the broader German war crimes, as well as the more Polish specific Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles. Lastly, there is the List of war crimes, which should probably have the incidents listed as well. For the record, I don't think mentioning the war crimes that occurred there is a violation of UNDUE, unless there is actual dispute that the events took place (and not just by whack-job conspiracy theorists and Holocaust deniers). Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
No dispute (I know of at least). I see an undue weight (or even displacement) of the sections because they have been added to articles covering modern administrative divisions in Poland and/or lack a history section. I am quite sure there must be a better place yet I did not find one. Maybe Pacification operations in German-occupied Poland? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The occupation of Poland seems very relevant. It is indeed somewhat undue if an article about a commune or a village has only a massacre in its history, but on the other hand, it is likely one of the most important events in that place, so while history should be expanded, I see no reason to remove the info.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

how do I add titles?

Hi - I'm trying to create a history portal for the Anglo-Saxon wiki, and I copied the templates over there, but the titles aren't showing up. Would someone be able to show me what I'm doing wrong so I can get the titles to show up? Thanks! --JamesR1701E (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Winner's history

can a stub be made that accurately defines this term and discusses some of the implications of it? thanks... Foofighter20x (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Principality of Paganija & De Administrator Imperio

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to bring Wikipedia’s attention to some of the historical information on it’s web site. It is about the former coastal Principality of Paganija in today's modern Croatia. The article concerned is in the historical section of Wikipedia (English Version). Historical facts are being presented here which appear to be formulated using unscientific methods. One can only interpret this as to be politically motivated.


The article is uses the information written in the book "De Administrator Imperio" by Roman Emperor Constantine VII Progenitors (Byzantine Empire) as it's only reference point. The historic information in the De Administrator Imperio which it cites has long been know as questionable, contradictory and should be treated as such. While other sections of this book have been regarded as genuine by respected Historians.

By using edited sections of De Administrator Imperio the reader comes to the conclusion that Slavic people of that area are of Serbian decent which clearly is not the case. This makes De Administrator Imperio a questionable source of historic information about this region. There are others such as two chapters telling two different versions of the arrival of Croatians. The sections about the arrival of Serbs seem to be identical to one of stories telling the arrival of Croatians. The chapters read as a retelling of the migration pattern of same peoples as if the author lacked historical information and used it as a template. One of the chapters also used mythic Croatian narratives as fact. Also De Administrator Imperio is describing events that took place three centuries before it was written. With this in mind, information in De Administrator Imperio concerning the Principality of Paganija can be put in serious doubt.

It beggars the question why hasn't other information been represented, such as the historical perspectives from the other Chronicles written in that period. Historical perspectives from the Venetian Republic, The Vatican, Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik), Medieval Kingdom Of Croatia and of course the most important of all the people themselves who live in that region.

Due to the very nature of the Internet and its place in society this misleading information can be used in the future as a propaganda weapon. One can only recall the recent former Yugoslavian Wars and how much pain, misery and death it brought.

One should also ask why is Wikipedia using poor historic scientific methods and is it representing politically biased interests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.59.195 (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't do much writing about Antiquity, so I can't address any of the content-related points you make. I can tell you that if you have access to better sources, you are more than welcome to edit the article to correct the deficiencies you see. Of course, there may be editors opposed to the changes you wish to make, so you'll have to discuss the issue with them if they do in fact object. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway project?

I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project to improve content related to his life and works. Is there anything like this already going on. Would that be ok to do? kilbad (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Politically Motivated Historical Facts On Wikipedia Web Site!

Hello Mr. Paresecboy,

Thank you for your invite to participate in the article concerning Dalmatia/Croatia (Principality of Pagania) . I’ve taken some time to think about this and undertook some research on the weekend to examine the history of the article in question.

I also had a look at other articles that relate to Dalmatia and it’s writers (& their personal Wiki Pages with their Wikipedic symbols and statements). I found some of the authors of these articles to have stated that they support biased and questionable political leanings. For example dictator worship, support for communist regime, anti fascist slogans (World War Two ended more than 1/2 century ago), atheistic declarations and so on. What is this all about? I am not declaring that all the writers are that way inclined but it seems to be that way.

From a western point of view it looks like a gathering of the old Yugoslav Communist guard. Correct me if I am wrong, however weren't they responsible for war crimes, ethnic cleansing, politically imprisonment, torture etc?

I choose not to debate or engage in conversation with any of these individuals and do not want to participate in dialogue that is not based on facts.

To put it succinctly there is a clear contradiction to their stated historic statements. The ethnic demographic of that region is predominately made up of people who have Croatian ancestry and some Italianic ancestry (Roman/Venetian). One merely has to research the Census documents and family names to reach this conclusion. In the face of these facts you still have researchers on your web site contradicting these simple truths. Due to this contradiction, it appears these articles are politically motivated.

There is also the issue of Red Croatia. Byzantine, Roman, German and Venetian chronicles all suggest the existence of Red Croatia which appears to explain the ethnic demographic of the area.

I have researched the “www.britannica.com Dalmatia Region Croatia” web site and they do not mention “De Administrator Imperio Chronicles” as an historical reference for the Dalmatian Region. This omission is obviously due to the fact that this reference is considered contradictory and therefore unreliable for that region. Maybe Wikpedia could consider adopting the same approach as www.britanica.com.

For Wikipedia to retain any sort of respect as a serious and reliable research tool, I would think it would be advisable to address the idea of some sort of academic unbiased screening of questionable material.


Sincerely


123.2.59.195

Hello again. I think part of the problem with that article is that there aren't any inline citations. If there were, we could see exactly what statements/claims are being attributed to the De Administrando Imperio. I do think it would be best to discuss this with the editors who have written the article, even if they are editing from a biased point of view. I suggest this, because once a content "dispute" has been established, you can send the article through the various processes of dispute resolution, which brings the attention of previously uninvolved people. You could, for example, make a request for comment on the issue, which could draw comments or suggestions from many neutral editors. If the case you present is strong, the consensus of these neutral editors will likely support the changes you want to make.
Another option would be to make a report at the reliable sources noticeboard, and make a more formal complaint about using De Administrando Imperio as a source for the article. If the sourcing experts there agree with you, the source can be removed from the article, and any statements that were supported by the text can also be removed.
There are a lot of options here, but they do generally tend to take a lot of time to be seen all the way through. As for general screening of articles, that is usually accomplished through either the formal quality review processes (WP:GA and WP:FA), or through the more informal dispute resolution processes I mentioned earlier. The problem with that is, it's very reactive. There either has to be an editor who nominates the page for one of the quality reviews, or an active dispute over the content of the article. I hope I've helped steer you in the right direction. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

History Portal 9/11 page ==

{{editsemiprotected}}

First line states that the attack was September 16, 2012

Above unsigned from 76.65.212.186 (talk · contribs)  Chzz  ►  18:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism per above request; thanks for pointing it out. Never knew Gordon Brown was in Al-Qaeda :-)  Chzz  ►  18:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

De Administrando Imperio & Chapters 30, 31 and 32

Hello Mr. Paresecboy, are you out there somewhere, hope you had a great Easter? Just need more guidance from you if that’s ok. I decided to approach Wikipedia /Noticeboard and didn’t have much luck. As I understood it there are two types of Reliable Sources. One being focused on facts and the other is more focused on the source being real, genuine (it’s content is then up for debate). However it did help me present my issues more succinctly. Could you please point me in the right direction or where do I go from here?Sir Floyd (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC) (formally know as 123.2.59.195)

Yep, my Easter was pretty good, thanks. I hope yours was nice as well. I think at this point, the best option may be to rewrite the article in your user space, with just the sources you know to be accurate (something like User:Sir Floyd/Pagania, for instance). Once you have the article finished, you can propose on the talk page that the current article be replaced by your version. Of course, if discussing with the editors who watch the page doesn't work, you can file a request for comment (I linked the main RFC page in the section above). If enough neutral editors support your version, it can be moved to be the main article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple English (box-header, box-footer)

Can anyone with more wiki-savvy than I fix the problem with the multiple Simple English entries under languages? --Edgerunner76 11:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please consider adding a Sub Portal for the American Civil War

this is an obvious and useful addition to this page / thanks; T Cox 17:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Cox (talk • contribs)

WORSHIP OF A DICTATOR ON WIKIPEDIA

Could the editors of wikipedia do something about that embarrassing feel-good article about the Eastern European Dictator (Joseph Broz-the former Yugoslavia). He is portrayed as some sort of pop star. This is embarrassing considering he was responsible for war crimes,mass massacres, torture & mass imprisonment. One to mention is the Foibe Massacres (there are BBC documentaries). Wikipedia has an article on this so it’s just contradicting itself. You have one feel-good article about a Dictator then you have an article about the Massacres he approved and organized with the Yugoslav Partisan Army. Then there were Death squads in Southern Dalmatia (the Croatians are putting up monuments for the poor victims & their families now) Also it’s important to mention that the Croatian Government is paying compensation to his former victims. Surely a more critical historical article should be written or this present article should be removed altogether. What is next? A Stalin feel-good article? What about the respect towards the poor victims who suffered those awful events? Why is Wikipedia praising a monster? Can the editors please look into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Floyd (talk • contribs) 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note guys, this is a sock trying to stir-up trouble. He's probably User:Luigi 28, but could be User:Brunodam as well. This message was copy-pasted just about everywhere in an effort to create a fake conflict about a non-existing issue. Considering the barely disguised POV-pushing, there's really little doubt its just another in a long, looong line of socks belonging to one of the so-called "irredentist users". A group of a dozen or so (mostly Italian) POV-pushers that got banned from enWiki for edit-warring, sockpuppeteering, block-evasion, harassment, etc.. They surface now and again to make spiteful edits and insult people. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


Mormonism, Oh My!

Alright, i'm not sure what is up with the Mormon-related items being "Featured" since May(earlier?), anyone want to clear this up for me? Melagius (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Note: i have no problems with Mormonism, just the fact that there have been no new featured articles for my favorite wikipedia portal

Thanks for pointing this out. I've never messed much with this kind of stuff, but I changed the article for next month. I noticed that the featured picture had the same problem, so I changed that, too. If anyone has suggestions for featured articles or pictures, please post them... Help a newb out :) Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 15:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool deal, thanks for the help, the same two users/ips have been continuing this vandalism, i've been trying to change it for awhile. Melagius (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, gotcha. I didn't realize that that was going on. I just figured nobody was changing it. I noticed that an IP changed it back after I changed it, but I chalked it up to a mistake. I'll help keep an eye out for it in the future. If you want to put the article(s) that you tried to feature up instead of mine or at a future time, feel free to do it. Cheers! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, cool deal, thanks for the help & advice, i appreciate it & will continue to monitor this portal Melagius (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the revision is holding...for now. i will continue to monitor this portal 72.10.77.27 (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

September 11 attacks portal removal

I would like to persuasively argue for the removal of the September 11 Attacks portal from the History portal. I believe such a placement would be biased on many accounts to an objective study of history. I also believe placing the attacks on the same lines as classical history and Egyptology would be to a) reduce the importance and magnitude of such areas of study and b) to give undue importance to one singular event rather than a field of study.

I am quite new at this so if someone could edit my post according to style guides would be quite helpful.

I second this proposal for the reasons stated within it. 72.10.77.27 (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, to add to my earlier proposition and reiterate some ideas, is with all due respect to the situation and the circumstances of the attacks per se, but i believe representing that as a field in the history portal would be a form of misrepresentation on the one hand leading to the supression of other more relevant portals. my proposals are listed below. please respond if you feel they are of any value or importance. If not please do respond with your own arguments, perhaps i am mistaken and need correction.
a) Move rather than remove the september 11 portal to a more relevant position perhaps one that discusses current/recent history.

b) perhaps introduce the American Civil War portal along with/or beside the American revolutionary war.

Thank you for taking the time to read these proposals, please do respond to build up a consensus.61.246.62.130 (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A casual user here, but would have to say the 9/11 attack portal should be moved or removed from the history portal section. If this remains then should all similar tragedies that had even more historical impact be implaced? ...attack on pearl harbor, bombing of hiroshima and nagasake, genocide of the native americans...for example. It is too specific in scope when compared to the other portals. 174.124.186.236 (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dome

The Dome article could use some attention. I have been trying to improve it virtually alone for the past few months, and I've made progress, but my knowledge on the subject has petered out and my interest has started to lag. I'm sure there are others editors here who can take it to the next level. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Help us choose the best images for the 20th century montages

Please participate in the following discussion pages and help us choose the best images for montages in the decade articles of the 20th century.

TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Something like an easy-to-navigate timeline

I think wikipedia would be given a good thing if a timeline of historical events is created. It should be easy to navigate and allow the reader to quickly look into when an event took place or what was happening in xy century. IMO, the current year, decade, and century pages are too in detail. See my humble idea at: User:De Administrando Imperio/Timeline.

Cheers, --DAI (Δ) 11:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sub-Portal for the World Wars

I think that we could have a sub-portal for the World wars. Even though it is relatively a short span of history, so much has happened in all spheres that it is worth a sub-portal. Also, we have a lot of information regarding the various events and aspects of the Wars, that is also being looked up quite often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandyqbg (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Pls see Portal:Contents/PortalsMoxy (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edward S. Curtis

From 1899 to 1929, photographer Edward S. Curtis documented Native Americans living west of the Mississippi, visiting more than eighty tribes while seeking to photograph their original customs and traditions. Below is a select sampling of the thousands of photos he produced during his thirty-year career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda901212 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have suggestions for the Edward S. Curtis article, I suggest you post at Talk:Edward S. Curtis. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

World Peace Council

I've done a lot of work on this and would appreciate help and comments. Thanks. Marshall46 (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not post/add it to Wikipedia's Peer Review? DCItalk 02:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Mughal Empire

All the muslim empires are forgotten and should be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfaraway269269 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not Featured content, and our topic distribution is wide enough to only include Featured material on the page. ResMar 21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Boone biography linking to Blackbeard (?)

I have no idea how it could have come to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.120.171 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted! I think this was a slip when the list of "Featured biographies" was created. If you look at Portal:History/Featured biography, you'll see that Blackbeard is number 5 and Daniel Boone is number 6. I've fixed it. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Article to add?

I've created an article 1950s American automobile culture which is under GA review. It was brought up that it might be appropriate for this portal, but I felt it was better to drop off a note and let someone here decide. Adding it to the See also area would be great if you think it is within the scope. If there is a question, please ping my talk page. Thanks! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2014


24.58.181.211 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2014

<AHMAD> <HEAD> <BODY>

182.56.171.134 (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

Laruure (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Need help with History of Siberia

I've extended the article, basing on Russian sourses. I make a lot of mistakes in English, and this article also needs correction. --Ъыь (mailbox)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2015

Sayed 04:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Need link to history of African Kingdoms

I can't for the life of me figure out how to add this (i already bypassed semi-protection), but I think this portal should feature a link to an African Kingdoms page, one referencing such things as the Ashanti, Nok, Swahili, and Great Zimbabwe. Kieran P. Clark (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing issues at Korean influence on Japanese culture

Could we please get some eyes on Korean influence on Japanese culture? Numerous sourcing issues have been raised on this very sensitive topic. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2016


RobertoZhaoDev (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Portal:History.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Given the nature of Portals, you will also need to reach consensus before any significant changes are implemented. - Arjayay (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Photos offered

Hi!, I've been visiting the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the British Museum in London. I've taken almost 7,000 pictures of thousands of archeological artifacts. I was wondering if you have a list of articles that could use good pictures, even several pictures, details of works, galleries, etc. Please let me know in my Talk Page. Regards. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

Mrityunjay.gautam (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC) 

TOMJ (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: The request is empty. Please describe the changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gulumeemee (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2017

Mrityunjay.gautam (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

jai hind mrityunjay gautam is the biggest desh bhakt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrityunjay.gautam (talk • contribs) 06:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

How about automatically making human population evolution numbers appear in the pages giving historic overviews e.g. when clicking a particular century?

One of my favorite activities is to make years and century mentions 'clickable", so that when people sea a year, century mentioned, they can click on it and it brings them to a page (semi-)automatically summarizing what other memorable events/people/relevant stuff happened at that time, to help contextualize wikipedia articles to readers which can be very insightful. An interesting parameter to give insight is to remind human population statistics - the size of human population at a specific century, decade, year. Or imagine even making it possible to understand in a specific region to not just have a sense of the world wide human population evolution but the regional context: maybe there was a plague or hunger or era of stability and readers could have a graph indicating not just the human population but the regional population evolution: total number of humans, births, deaths, number of orphans, etc. Is there a way to automatically make population statistics appear in those (semi-)automatically summarizing pages on centuries, decades and years? Must me a rewarding challenge for the programmers? Thy and enjoy your day like I am, --SvenAERTS (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals

Editors might be interested to see a discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice from the Portals WikiProject

WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.

As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals. So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   07:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Selected Biography

I am recently noticing that a very small group of articles is being recurringly showcased in the "Selected Biography" section. Can this be changed? Brain (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018

Sam marcy2252 (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Messed up or what else is happening here ?

Today, 21st December 2018, the page shows many occurrences of "The time allocated for running scripts has expired", in red fonts. Brain (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nikolas Tales and Pbsouthwood: This portal feeds the lua scripts a lot of data calls, while the servers only allocate 10 seconds max server time to lua on a page load. Looks like we are pushing up against the threshold on this one. On slow connections or overloaded lines, this can cause the scripts to go over their allocated execution time limits. We have pushed the calls to the brink to eek out as much portal power as possible, and will scale them back to just the point where they don't cause anyone any errors. Thank you for reporting the time-outs. I have adjusted the section parameters, which should reduce this portal's server load below the threshold. Let me know if you get further errors, and if so, I will adjust them down further. Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Why this page switches its date at exactly 00:00 am GMT? I thought it was a US-based website, not a British one. I wouldn't be surprised if users from USA complained.Brain (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
All Wikipedia timed based script is based on GMT. It is not about Britain or USA. This site serves a global audience and GMT is the internationally accepted base line. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

Wikihacker21120 (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

May I please edit?

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:
  • If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
  • If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
  • You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Portal updates

The following updates have been performed to the portal. North America1000 06:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Restored the rotating images in the Introduction section atop the portal (diff). It is unknown why it was removed.
  • Changed the box background coloration to white (diff), making the text easier to read and to reduce the all-brown layout that previously existed, making it a bit garish, in my opinion.
  • Removed the Related portals section, which duplicates the portals browsebar atop the page (diff). The subportals section remains in place to direct readers to more directly-related portals relative to the topical focus of history.
  • Updated portal using Template:Transclude random excerpt, providing current, up-to-date information that is verbatim to article content. A consensus approving the usage of transclusion templates in portals was formed at this Village Pump discussion. Used FA-class articles from Portal:History/Featured article (diff) and Portal:History/Featured biography (diff)
  • Mindfully expanded the Featured article section with the addition of more FA-class articles (diff), keeping in mind that the portal is intended to provide readers with a representation of a wide world view, with a diversity of topics.
  • Expanded the Featured article section with the addition of more FA-class articles, keeping in mind that the portal is intended to provide readers with a representation of a wide world view, with a diversity of topics (diff, diff, diff, diff).
  • Expanded the Featured biography section with the addition of more FA-class articles, keeping in mind that the portal is intended to provide readers with a representation of a wide world view, with a diversity of topics (diff).
  • Expand portal with a new General images section, which displays images from various topically-related articles: Ancient history, Middle Ages and Early modern period. These can be changed/rotated/shuffled periodically via basic copy editing.

Content selection criteria

To keep this information in a centralized area, the following is content selection criteria from various portal subpages. Per the portal now using transclusions for article content, parts have been struck out here.

Added articles should be Featured articles about prominent (or not so prominent) historical figures, and should be added to the first available slot, and afterwards the max= parameter on this section's {{Random portal component}} on the actual portal should be updated. A current list of eligible articles can be found here; biographies should instead be nominated to the Selected biography section. Try to avoid systematic bias; this section's selections were crafted to represent as wide a world view as possible. Lastly, if for some reason you wish to nominate a non-FA biography for inclusion, you can do so in the nominations section at the bottom of this page.

Added biographies should be Featured articles about prominent (or not so prominent) historical figures, and should be added to the first available slot, and then the max= parameter of this section's {{Random portal component}} template should be incremented. A current list of eligible articles can be found here; non-biographies should be nominated to the Selected article section instead. Try to avoid systematic bias; this section's selections were crafted to represent as wide a world view as possible. Lastly, if for some reason you wish to nominate a non-FA biography for inclusion, you can do so in the Nominations section at the bottom of this page.

Per all of this, the nomination of non-FA-class articles can now be proposed on this main portal talk page, rather than on the subpages. North America1000 06:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to include GA-class articles in the portal

There are a limited number of history-related FA-class articles. I propose that the portal's content selection criteria be expanded, specifically to allow the addition of GA-class articles. This would allow for greater topical diversity to better round-out the portal, providing a more comprehensive historical overview. North America1000 10:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine with me. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that sounds totally fine. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Notes re portal work

Northamerica1000, thanks so much for your help and your edits on this portal!! as you may know, I am coordinator at Wikiproject History. I am totally open to any edits and any ideas that you may have. i am eager to get this portal up and running. you can feel free to edit as much or as little as you may wish. your input and work here are highly welcome, as we do hope to get this portal up and running again as an active resource. i welcome your ideas. Please feel free to write, to comment, or to express any thoughts, ideas, or info, any time. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sm8900: I'm a bit busy working on other stuff, but I will try to post some ideas here soon. For starters, though, the addition of more Featured articles would certainly be an improvement. Does the portal have any sort of topical selection criteria? I ask because the general discipline of history covers a lot of ground. Perhaps new additions should be continent-based. For example, when updating with new articles, one article can be added for each of the following continents: Africa, Asia, Antarctica, Australia, Europe, North America and South America. This would help to ensure for the portal to contain diverse content, and not focus too much upon one topic or another. However, maybe Antarctica doesn't have to be included every time or on every run, because it seems that there are less articles available compared to that based within other continents (e.g. see Category:Antarctica). North America1000 20:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sm8900: See below for updates that have been performed, and for a new proposal for the portal. North America1000 10:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Northamerica1000, this all looks terrific. thanks so much for all your help, work, and effort here. looks like you have really helped this portal to improve. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2020

108.163.68.3 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

May i have some help with some of your local infomation

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Recognized content

This section has been moved to Portal:History/Recognized content. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

How to add new featured pictures very fast

The featured picture section of the portal has been overhauled using template {{Portal pictures}}. To add another picture to the selection, only POTD date is needed. No need to copy-paste captions, no need to fill out a layout template, no need to increase |max= when a new numbered subpage is added. Just add a date. You can also use the search box on the subpage to find other appropriate pictures. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ancient History

Ancient Indian art and architecture? Deva Maurya (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2021

Safiyanu Yushau born in 03, March, 1995 in Gidan Dutse Lere Local Government Area, Kaduna State Nigeria Safiyanu Yushau (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC) run

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Volteer1 (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I clicked on the Show Another button on featured article thinking it would show an another article but it instead gives me The template Infobox file display is being considered for deletion

What do I do to fix this problem? I'm sorry that I caused this problem because I thought clicking on the show another button would show an another featured article. I feel foolish FabioKevintable (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@FabioKevintable: I'm fairly certain you did nothing wrong and there is no problem to "fix". Looks like you're talking about the notice to this TfD. --DB1729talk 17:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:History/Archive_1&oldid=1190647010"