Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historical information
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Irony
This proposed guideline is highly ironic. Please edit it so that it is less ironic. —The preceding unsigned comment was placed on the project page by User:Ashibaka (Talk | Contribs)
- What do you mean, Ashibaka?—msh210℠ 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] General comments on formation of this page
Tentativly support, I have added or expanded history sections in many articles, seen their lack in many others, and I agree there is a problem. But first thing: let's make the template less obtrusive - I prefer something like {{unreferenced}}. On the other hand, there are articles where 'history of' is in fact the main article: consider my recent split of History of Solidarity from Solidarity. We should address that issue as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- In such a case, the main page (Solidarity, e.g.) should have a section on history with a line or two of text and should indicate that the main article on that topic is elsewhere. See Template:Main and Template:Details.—msh210℠ 00:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This sounds reasonable. I'm for it. Herostratus 04:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of working to balance the Internet-era-centric bias I see in so many articles. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm tentatively in favour of something like this, as well. But I can see problems.
- Some subjects are more or less defined by their history. Many philosophical ideas fall into this category. (Hegel sez that "philosophy is the history of philosophy.") These articles are necessarily going to begin with who thunk up these ideas first, and then move forward with their influence, if in fact they had any.
- Other subjects have historical dimensions that belong in other articles. At some point an article on the English language is going to have its history belong in the Germanic languages article instead.
I'd be hesitant to approve of any more guidelines or suggested guidelines that could be applied zealously or rigidly. Especially if it also comes with a new warning template to tag articles with; their proliferation is itself damaging to the street-cred of the project. At minimum, make it sure that it's the talk page that gets flagged. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project?
Should this be a WikiProject? (The existing WikiProject History is for articles about history.)—msh210℠ 00:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm clearing out the backlog at Category:Wikipedia proposals and I found myself agreeing with this suggestion. I've moved the page accordingly in a fit of being bold. Hiding Talk 13:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Membership & Page Format
As someone who is primarily interested in adding details to several geographic pages, I am in agreement about the need for more historical data. However, I have a few questions and comments. The format of the page itself could be improved, specifically including a section where individuals could add their names to the project. Other information that might be useful can be found in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. I look forward to seeing your project be a great success. Badbilltucker 14:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 20:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Philosophy of History
History is very much a victim of subjectivity, therefore (as a historian) i think it is mandatory to improve the quality of debate. I have started a WikiProject for this purpose (Wikipedia:WikiProject organized debate). Are you willing to cooperate with me or to give some feedback?--Daanschr 12:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] We've been tagged inactive
Well, folks? Are we active? It's been a couple of months since I've thrown a {{histinfo}} onto an article. I have been adding historical info to a number of articles, and critiquing others that lack it (Islam in the United States, for instance), but I haven't linked the work to this project in any way. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
In related news, WP:HIST was redirected to WikiProject History. --Eliyak T·C 04:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- WP:HIST never did redirect here, unless I'm mistaken. The shortcut remains WP:HISTINFO. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 20:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW the project is no longer inactive. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flagging articles
Please remember to flag articles that lack historical info with {{histinfo}}.
If this is not the only problem with the article, try the {{Articleissues}} template instead. For example: {{Articleissues|advert=November 2007|histinfo=y}} will flag both promotional language and a lack of historical information.
Note that the histinfo paramater does not accept a date. Most other parameters do. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 5 Dec 07 vandalism?
I hate to ask what seems like an obvious question ... but do you consider the 5 Dec 07 change to be vandalism? Your project looks a bit like it's still in the works, and I'm not (yet?) a member, so I'll let someone else make the determination and RV it if needed. Rob Rosenberger (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
