Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dacia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia. 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

Tagging for 1.0 Assessment,

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)

Found the template at Template:WikiProject Dacia. I will start tagging through the categories by next week. I think we may want to rethink the image though, Sadads (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help. Sorry I missed the messages. Holidays plus although I have this page on my watchlist, there is no notification. Let me know the thoughts about changing the template/picture.--Codrinb (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Done I finished the tagging in Category:Dacia, which ones should I be looking at next? Also, I will look around at the images, Sadads (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That's super cool! Are you doing it manually? I was waiting for Xenobot_Mk_V and AlexNewArtBot to run. It would be cool to use the list of rules (which needs much more work) that I created for AlexNewArtBot and use it to flag older articles, not just new. Don't know how yet. I am still discovering bots and how to use them. I worked on categorizing the images on Commons and on the Dacian gallery but there is much more work. Glad to have you aboard! --Codrinb (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I always do tagging semi-automatically with AWB, because I have a lot more control over what gets tagged and if I find a problems in the way something is categorized, I can go in and fix the categories. I like doing the organizational stuff and the assessment (both of which can generally be done little knowledge of the topic area).Sadads (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about scope

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)

It's a bit tricky. While most scholars agree that Dacians are northern Thracians, there are many disputes still. There are people that dispute Dacians = Getae. I dissagree with both ideas, especially when then come from nationalistic or political agendas. Having said that, I think we should take small steps. I suggest that we focus on Geto-Dacians and Moesi (which are closer to Dacians than Thracians). Once we bring all Dacia related articles to Featured Article level (ha ha! :-)) , we can continue with the Thracian ones. If the articles involve both Dacians and Thracians, for example Zalmoxis, we should of course have it in our initial scope. Merry Christmas!--Codrinb (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we refine the categories that fall within our scope a little more then, that way it is clearer. Right now there are a lot of categories associated with Thrace that are and were in that list, Sadads (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I added the scope on the main page. Also, I noticed your work on the category that's cool and should help! I'll add some priorities there --Codrinb (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I just remembered that the Categories page, in the form I created is used by User:Xenobot_Mk_V. Your collapsing is cool but I don't think the bot will work with it. Unless you know otherwise, I will have to create a page for the bot (with the categories list as it was) and another for humans --Codrinb (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Update

I've just assessed and rated all the Dacia articles by quality and importance. BineMai 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Created the Template:Dacian cities. BineMai 15:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good job on both, you have been doing a lot of great work! Sadads (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Great job! Cool work on the template. I added it to the templates list. Let me know if you are interested in creating {{Dacia topics}}. One option would be translating Dacia template from Romanian Wikipedia. Otherwise, I'll probably work on it next.--Codrinb (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll finish it by tomorrow. BineMai 21:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Created the Template:Dacia topics but feel free to add articles that i've missed. BineMai 15:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I will add that template to the pages using AWB. It looks pretty good right now! Sadads (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Done - As you can see, I made some edits to the template to clean it up. In particular, we need to be careful about the links that are spelled the same as other English language words. Otherwise, it looks pretty good and if you have any questions on what I did, you can ask here or on the template talkpage, Sadads (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

WOW! It looks even better now! Great job. BineMai 21:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Guys! Super cool work! I added more language, Roman Dacia topics and tried to organized somewhat chronologically. It got a big bigger but it is pretty comprehensive. As better articles get created, we have to come back to this template and link them. There is still work to be done on it. Let me know your thoughts.--Codrinb (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if the Foreign Relations links are really appropriate the way you represent them. I would really suggest removing them, Sadads (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability

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)

New userbox

I've made a new userbox for who is interested. BineMai 22:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Code

Result

This user looks up to Burebista as the best example of a good leader.

Cool! I put it on the main page Codrin.B (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Read this

Plese add the Template:Dacian cities under the form {{Dacian cities}} to new articles about Dacian cities. Thank you. BineMai 22:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Will do, likely tomorrow, I don't have my PC right now, but am operating on my Google Chrome OS pilot computer, so am not able to run AWB. Sadads (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry still haven't done this, life is a little hectic right now, Sadads (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone already did it! Sadads (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Gatae

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)

Yes, I read about it too. I will look for references on it and post them on the article. Thanks for bringing this up.--Codrin.B (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I found some books and added them to the article but then I realized that they were circular references: the books were printed off Wikipedia!! Books LLC looks very sketchy to me... I'll dig some more but the article is in question.--Codrin.B (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Museum in scope

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)

I created the category Category:Museums of Dacia to group together all museums that have archaeological artifacts relating to Dacia. But it doesn't make the scope that much broader. I think it is very relevant as they are the best sources for the subject. In particular, Talk:Kunsthistorisches Museum has one of biggest Dacian gold collection, if not the biggest. See commons:Dacia and Dacians#Treasures, jewellery, coins, commons:Category:Kunsthistorisches Museum, commons:Category:Dacian jewellery and Dacian bracelets. I think it would be great to use these images for a section in the museum article. Same holds for Naturhistorisches Museum. Yes, the Austrians took a lot of gold from Transylvania ;-).--Codrin.B (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for Bots

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)

Updated project template and documentation

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)

Nomination of Dacian script for deletion

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)

Removal of WikiProject Dacia template from relevant articles

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)

Moving religion, occupations, culture, language from Dacia to Dacians

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)

Using the user space or WikiProject Dacia drafts space for high conflict articles

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)

Comments for changes to Costoboci, Carpi and the Map of Roman Empire

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

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)

Your labeling of the entire project, open hostility and incredibly negative statements are insulting EVERY MEMBER of this project, formed by a very neutral and diverse group people with extremely various backgrounds, and beliefs. I personally invited you to this discussion several times, in good faith, and despite of incredible negative attitude given before, hoping you will have a positive approach, and provide constructive criticism and a neutral opinion. I fail to see how you attitude can help in any way, ever if you are 100% right (which you are not) and is very disappointing... --Codrin.B (talk) 18:04, 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):

1. 'I was just reading this blog about the large number of Dacian statues made by Romans (quoting from a well-known Dacomanic blog). Leonard Velcescu did a PhD in art on this subject and found over a hundred of them. One wonders why the Romans represented so many Dacians, and didn't do the same for Celts, Iberians, Illyrians, Thracians or Germanic tribes? One puzzling question, why are they not in chains?'

2. 'Here is very long List of Dacian towns and Davae. Many of them also coincide with most major cities in Romania proving continuity'.

3. 'You are trying to separated from being also anti-Romanian but is a very twisted way of thinking. Honestly, everyone will associate the two (Dacian and Romanian) whether you like it or not'.

Andrei (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm obviously not responding to false accusations and inflammatory rhetoric, but here's some constructive criticism of the kind you ask: the users whose name you cite were not asked if they wanted to sign their name to that "disclaimer", or probably failed to even notice the problem. If my attitude is supposed to help, here's what's helpful: you remove that disclaimer or at least ask each and every member if they approve of your "anti-anti-Protochronist" agenda. Otherwise, you're making people sign up to your personal fantasies, and that is, long story short, intellectually dishonest. Nobody with a vague familiarity of scholarly opinion would even consider willingly signing up to such absurdities - like the Texas sharpshooter, you shot and then painted your target. Dahn (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone in the project has a say on these things. If you look at the history of those sections, you can see that I was not the only user who participated to those clarifications and to the scope definition. I even invited users who proved the hostility against the project from day one. But nothing seems good or good enough to you. I added that disclaimer due to unfair attacks and suspicion, and now you ask me to take it out? To what end? And please stop this unfair campaign against the project and collaborate in good faith if you have genuine interest in the Dacian history and want to make sure the articles are properly written and sourced. Please take a look at the very intellectual and civil debate between Daizus and Hxseek, two members of the project: [1], [2]. They obviously have different opinions but don't attack each other or spend their time in a campaign against the project. This is very constructive and exactly what we need. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I ask you take it out because it is misleading and disruptive. I have no campaign against the project (though many share my fear that it could easily become a venue for promoting, what's it called, "Dacology"), I have a problem with that kind of embarrassment to wikipedia, and particularly with the "disclaimer"'s way of implying that all those who don't agree with the notion of "anti-anti-Protochronism" as something positive are, to quote, "anti-Romanian" - this is highly inflammatory. Simple as that. Dahn (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the term Dacology has become so tarnished and associated so deeply with Protochronism, but I find that sad, unfair and unfortunate. And I think it deserves to be separated from Dacomania. And why focus only on that inflamatory phrase and ignore the first one, which clearly wants to distance the project from Dacomania and establish balance? I repeat it here: "In the content related to this project, we seek to avoid Dacomania and Protochronism, and the poor scholarship associated with the fields which often leads to Original Research, biased information, confusion and antagonizes the Academia and disrespects the careers and efforts of historians, archaeologists and other specialists.". What more can we say and do to avoid suspicion and attacks? --Codrin.B (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The template is a farce Codrin, and even you should acknowledge it. While you admit the existance of the disease (Protochronism in this case) you are symmetrically condenming people who are fighting it as being too combative and distructive. In a very simillar way you could lay accusations on a team of medical researchers trying to contain or find a cure for Cancer as behaving in a hostile manner and following an aggressive agenda.

If you are trying to salvage Dacology and sepparate it from Protochronistic influences then you have chosen the wrong playground to do that. Wikipedia and wiki-projects ought not to be used to pursue redemption campaigns.

I will give you a useful and friendly advice: remove all the anti-(Dacian, Romanian, Protochronist) statements from this template. Afterall, you said you are on the side of balance and peace. Now is your chance to proove it!

Andrei (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the attempt to salvage the term Dacology, as well as toned down or removed other items that could raise suspicion of being inflamatory. It's very sad and unfair to have Dacology in the dirt but indeed it seems doomed. I believe the Academia should have the balls and wisdom to take it back from Dacomans, by positive example of valuable science, recognized and validated by the world. Until that happens, if ever, I agree this is the wrong place to attempt to salvage it. Wikipedia is equally the wrong place to label and kill Dacomans or burn witches as it is to salvage Dacology. I will not remove the valid statement regarding anti-Protochronistic policing and aggressiveness, as such attempts, while just at the core (pseudoscience has negative effects), advocate drama, labeling, inquisition mentality, incivility and violate a large set of WP policies. You do not respond to stupidity with stupidity, to violence with violence. There is no balance or neutrality if this project becomes the office of the anti-Protochronistic police, busy deleting content, labeling, judging and blocking users. There is nothing encyclopedic or academic about a police force. Their is nothing positive or creative in such an approach. Medical researchers do not butcher patients in attempts to cure cancer. They use their knowledge and wisdom and take slow steps to make sure they do the right thing and don't kill the patient with radical approaches. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you enthusiasm for salvaging hijacked concepts but I think that even the designation 'Dacology' is itself pretentious and has some irredentist connotations for other nations neighbouring Romania. I think it would be better just to stick to the term 'Ancient history of Dacia', OK? Wikipedia is also the wrong place to accuse other people of having interests and agendas. For this reason alone I advice you yet again to remove all the anti-(Dacian, Romanian, Protochronistic) statements from this template.

Codrin, can't you see that the line about 'anti-Protochronistic aggressiveness' is alone causing other users to be suspicious about the whole wiki-project? Not to mention how wrong and ridiculous it is to associate terms like balance and neutrality with Protochronism.

I agree with you that there is nothing encyclopedic or academic about a police force. And you certainly don't want this wiki-project to have to deal with people enforcing Wikipedia regulations, right? So remove the anti-(Dacian, Romanian, Protochronistic) statements from this template!

Andrei (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-read my statement above. Where was I not clear? The way it is written now is well balanced. Removing this phrase will make it clearly the office of anti-Protocronist police. I made A LOT of concessions against all hostility I am treated with. Learn to do the same and stop imposing your views if you want peace. You are not a god or always right. If you know you are not in the Anti-Romanian category or not looking to be a policeman than you shouldn't be affected by that phrase. It is not for you. If you can't deal with it, you are free to leave and join or start other projects. Given all the conflict you created, you chose the wrong time and approach to join the project and push your views. I would be more humble and respectful if I were you. And what do you make of Thracology? Should be destroyed too? Should be called the 'Ancient history of Thrace'? It's ridiculous and inaccurate. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think the way the template is now written is balanced. I have the right to hold an opinion of my own, you know. I believe the best way would be to drop any references to anti-Dacian and anti-Romanian agendas and also the stance against 'anti-Protochronistic aggressiveness'. And please understand that it is wrong to label users as belonging to Anti-Romanian or Pro-Romanian categories. This template as it now stands is encouraging other people to think like you and to start accusing others of having interests and agendas. This is not the way Wiki-project Dacia should be.

How can you imply this project is not for me and that I should consider joining or starting other wiki-projects? You should know that one of my earliest contributions to Wikipedia was to add a section regarding Dacian Warfare to the article on Ancient Warfare: [3] I have also made the map of Roman Dacia which is now used in many Dacia-related articles. And I think I have the freedom to join any wiki-project I want.

Andrei (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that's great and that's why I invited you from day one. But I wonder why didn't you start the project years ago? You been here for quite a while. It's much easier to stand on the side and throw stones and insults to someone who tries. Some of you been here for a while and I willing to bet based on all the shit I got so far that such Dacomanic wars took place here before I joined in November-December. I am sure you all knew about it since you are very vehement and intimate with the Protochronism. I didn't even know this term and the gravity of this conflict until I got labeled and pulled into. I am sure you didn't create the project because of these problems. You needed a fool and a scape goat to come around and take the bait. And here I am! Very kind and smart of all of you! --Codrin.B (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To my best knowledge, no other wikiproject has such a manifesto. I think that this one's shows that the very raison d'etre of a wikiproject is ignored: it is supposed to help people in editing topics covered by the wikiproject (i.e by providing feedback, review, copyediting, source suggestion etc from interested people). At no time wikiprojects were designed to act as cabals, vigilante groups or police forces. So let's just take that header down. If editors don't grasp the basic concepts of the 5 pillars (and especially of the ones summarized by "NPOV") they shouldn't be doing any editing on WP at all.Anonimu (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Anonimu. I was forced to put it because of this imaginary witch hunt madness. Is out now. Sigh... --Codrin.B (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Namespace collision between Dacian towns and insects and arachnoids named after them

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)

Usage of Dacia stubs

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 new members!

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)

I would suggest contacting them on their user talk pages, they may not be watching the project talk page yet, Sadads (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Helmet of Coţofeneşti

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)

I also added one of the images to WP:FPC as I think is worth featuring. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ziridava

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)

Helmet of Iron Gates

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)

DYK for Dacian Draco

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)

Would be great to get it to WP:GOOD now! ;-) --Codrin.B (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Identifying the helmets

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:

Agighiol is here [4]
Peretu is here [5]
Ciumesti Celtic type [6]
Giurgiu Attic type [7]
Cotofenesti (though, no indication from MNIR) [8]
Călăraşi Hellenistic type [9]
Racos unknown 1st century AD [10]

Boldwin (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Some answers here http://www.metmuseum.org/publications/journals/1/pdf/1512767.pdf.bannered.pdf

Has anyone any ideea where is exposed the Agighiol helmet ? CristianChirita (talk) 06:28, 22 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,

the right one, with Agighiol (Inventar # 11181 MNIR http://clasate.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=81BABCE1DF424C99AD31D74514029DDA) seems to have a horseman
the right side with the uploaded ones there is a bird

But we do not see the right side of Peretu

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 rightBoldwin (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)

Bolwin, that's a great list. I didn't know about some of those helmets. I've seen that Cristian created the commons:Category:Helmet of Peretu category and moved there the pictures of the helmet originally identified as being from Agighiol. Regarding the Portile de Fier helmet, what do you mean we don't have any uploads of it? I put it here a while ago: commons:Category:Helmet of Iron Gates.--Codrin.B (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Check out this new page commons:Dacian helmets. I created it to centralize and showcase all Dacian helmets we have. I am still not clear about the Peretu/Agighiol helmets's pictures and which one is which. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dacian bracelets on Commons

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)

You did it very well. We'll try to add more pictures.Boldwin (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- 13 Bracelets were exposed in MNIR, the pictures are now in commons:

... and so onCristianChirita (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the pictures!! They made it to in the new Dacian bracelets article! --Codrin.B (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dacian Shields

Could someone help with an article for the Dacian Umbo?

Auroch decoration
Griphon decoration

Very nice!! Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Other Artefacts

palatul sutu
has anyone any references, regarding this artefact?

Very interesting pictures! I personally don't know much about them, but we'll find out, I am sure. Thanks a lot! --Codrin.B (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

DYK for Dacian bracelets

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)

CristianChirita contributed with great pictures, and Chaosdruid made a great job with copy-editing . And ProjectDacia that you initiated and maintain made it possible. Boldwin (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

New Dacia related pictures

Sarmizegetusa Regia 2011 - Solar Disc Detail
Costesti Cetatuie Dacian Fortress 2011 - Tower House One
Aiud History Museum 2011 - Dacian Iron Tools and Weapons
Colonia Dacica Sarmizegetusa 2011 - Amphitheater Bench
Apulum Ruins 2011
Rosia Montana Roman Gold Mines 2011 - Galleries

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)

Dacian fortresses

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)

Oh, that's great! I was about to start an article on Costesti today. Reading people minds? ;-) Regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Check {{Dacian cities}}. Also List of Dacian towns. Please see if anything is missing. Also, maybe you add them to the Romanian list of Dacian fortresses? One note, we have to be consistent whether we use fortress or Fortress in the name. Not sure which one complies better to the style guide. Maybe the lower case one. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Dacian towns and fortresses

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 get DYK by National Day of Romania

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)

You know, it has to be sourced content, not just content. Good luck with that. Dahn (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, this is not even a draft yet... --Codrin.B (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Salvage Roman Dacia

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)

Thanks everyone for the help. Roman Dacia is back to main space, on the way to WP:GOOD.--Codrin.B (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Dacia

Hi guys! I've been working to organize media related to Dacia on Commons most of 2011. We have a lot of content that warrants the creation of a Commons project. I created the Commons:WikiProject Dacia proposal as a sister project to WP:DACIA (in English) and WP:DACIA (in Romanian) to better organize, categorize and improve the quality of media and galleries related to ancient Dacia. I know that many of you already contributed media to commons to support the articles we created. If you are interested, please join and support the new Commons project. Once we have enough prospective members, I will submit it to Commons:WikiProject Council. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

... and happy holidays! --Codrin.B (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been completed and we also got the 1st Valued image set. Join and contribute!--Codrin.B (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Dacia (disambiguation)

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)

Need help for description

More to come next days CristianChirita (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice work!! Looking forward for the rest.--Codrin.B (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks in advance for help! next days the constantine arch and some of trajan column CristianChirita (talk)

Please also help with the Mithra and maybe a frigian hat article :) I hope i can publish next week.

BTW The Draco is quite different from the column :) CristianChirita (talk)

Great pictures. Your are right, that Draco looks strange. Do you have a picture with the entire statue or relief, to see the context? --Codrin.B (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Context is here:

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tyrida

For those interested, Tyrida was marked for speedy deletion.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Template for discussion: Template:Infobox dava

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)

Template for discussion: Template:Infobox castrum

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)

scope of the project

Please express your opinion for the following disagreement:

Lothar Klaic (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Phineas

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)

Move

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)

Expel of member Borsoka from Project

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)

Agree -- Saturnian (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree --Codrin.B (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

input sought at Roman Empire

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)

History of Vojvodina

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)

Lukovit-wiki.jpg

Article proposed for deletion

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)

RFC at Talk:History of Vojvodina

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)

== Recent reenactment show ==

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)

Nice! Can you post them on commons? --Codrin.B (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I already posted them on Commons some time ago ;) -- Saturnian (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Desudaba

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)

The articles about Dacian cities and fortresses are considered of at least mid importance to WP:DACIA, so the ranking is correct. Lack of time if primarily the reason I didn't return to it yet. The sections were placeholders that would help with a consistent structure for all articles about Dacian cities. What is needed are more contributors. However, I don't understand exactly the main critique points or suggested changes.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Dacia at Wikimania 2014

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)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

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)

WikiProject X is live!

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)

Wikipedia:Loeb Classic Library Donation with The Wikipedia Library

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)

Requested move for drafts

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)

Iazyges

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)

Double redirect needs fixing

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)

Never mind: the project hasn't been active in over three years. I've tagged it as defunct, therefore. I'll just ignore the DR as irrelevant. If anyone wanders over to reactivate, they will have a lot to do it seems... — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot to check active and inactive participant's edits. I have notified the first participant on the list (who appears to be still active on Wikipedia, at least) of this error but I'll leave it to anyone who wanders over to reassess the situation and remove/update the tags as necessary as I'm still sure the project is defunct, there being a ~~ream~~ quire of unanswered requests/comments above... — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iadmc: I'm still here, but I'm pretty sure I'm the only one. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Hello! Can I leave all this for you to deal with then? Sorry about that... :) — Iadmc ♫^talk 13:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iadmc: Yes, I've moved the page to a different, suitable redirect without leaving a redirect. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It kept appearing in WPCleaner — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I am also still around but quite busy these days. I think there are still enough members around so marking it defunct could be a bit premature. Double redirects should certainly be fixed. Thanks for waking us up :-) --Codrin.B (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

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!

MNIR

I've put new images on MNIR. Any help with descriptions and categories will be appreciated.

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

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

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

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

The discussion about this can be found here.

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

Background

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

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

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

So far, 84 editors have joined.

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

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

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Splitting proposal: Origin of the Romanians

All comments are appreciated here. Borsoka (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Marcus Aurelius needs attention

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)

RfC: Origin of the Romanians

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 is out!

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

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

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

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)

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

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

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Assistance required to end deadlock in merger proposal discussion

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)

Proposal to merge this project into WikiProject History

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Merge inactive history WikiProjects. – Joe (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)