Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History

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

Main pageDiscussion pageSub-pages indexArticle
AssessmentReviewCollaborationTask ForcesOutreachMembersPopular pages
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
WikiProject Announcements

WikiProject History (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

WikiProject History needs you!!!![edit]

Hi everyone. I am writing to ask for any volunteers who might like to get more involved here at WikiProject History. Right now, we would like to get WikiProject History up and running again. A number of people have signed up in the past, and indicated their willingness to be involved. If you're still here, feel free to reply here. You can reply here in this section, even if it's just to say hello. If you want, you can simply let me know what you are personally working on right now. or also, if you want, you can let me know what your interests are, what topics you find interesting, what you;d like to do, or how you'd like to be involved. whatever it may be, we'd like to hear from you. we appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for posting and calling out. Community building can be a challenge. My view is that if a WikiProject manages to attract 3 people who post once a month, then that is the foundation for being ready for newcomer comments and engagement. All this works better if none of those three go far out of their usual routine and if they also watch for comments. I am unable to be around regularly myself, but I will be a sport and post a challenge for now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bluerasberry, that's terrific. thanks for your reply. yes, that's totally fine. a little interaction is all we need to keep things moving along here. it is great to hear from you. whatever frequency is feasible for individuals is totally fine here. our main goal is simply to get different views over time. your note is very helpful. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been watching this page for a while, and it's nice to see a little activity around here – it has been seeming a little moribund lately. I agree with Blue Raspberry – you don't need that many posts for a project to reach a critical mass of activity where people start looking at it regularly. Take WP:CGR – there are only about 5 new discussions posted on the talk page per month, but while a few of those are notices of discussions elsewhere, most of them do actually lead to discussion on the talk page itself. And if you hang about there, you will notice the same names coming up again and again in discussions. I suspect the same is true of other active wikiprojects – there are a few regular contributors who keep discussions going, which makes anyone else who looks in feel as though it's worth watching the page. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Caeciliusinhorto those are great points. I appreciate your ideas and input here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad to see the initiative and jumping in to say that this talk page is now on my watchlist too. I do not have much experience with article assessment or other WikiProject-specific tasks, but history is one of my areas of interest, and I do work on a lot of history-related articles, so it's good to know that this space can possibly be used as a resource/sounding board for related questions when/if they come up.--MattMauler (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been lurking around here for a bit now. I have some older accounts that apparently weren't linked to my email, hence why my account says it was created today. I would personally love to contribute, but I frankly have no idea where to start. Any pointers would be appreciated! If it helps, I am most interested in the period from roughly 1800 onward. Lord Dweebington1 (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Developing a canon of culture to translate[edit]

In a few months there will be an LGBT+ Wiki conference as described at meta:Queering Wikipedia. This will be the first global gathering of LGBT+ Wikipedia editors to develop LGBT+ content.

Telling the story of the history of the LGBT+ movement is a challenge. We have cultural diversity, as every culture has an LGBT+ history with events. We also have many time periods to cover, as over the centuries, some cultures had more or less activity with records to mention. There is no canon of most popular or recommended events or topics in LGBT+ global history.

As with all Wikipedia development projects we have limited volunteer labor. There are thousands of English language topics, but if the goal is to promote global education and culture, then we should focus on a subset of these articles and stage that subset for translation. I guessed that 100 articles would be a good number, and documented this concept at meta:Wiki99.

Here is my question for WikiProject History: suppose that a group wants to promote global multilingual education in a field, and that group decides to develop about 100 Wikipedia articles in that field for translation and cultural exchange. How should we determine the weight of how many of those articles should be from one country, and from what time period?

Some cases where people have asked about this are religion, architecture, science, women's history, medicine, and other similar broad fields which have their own regional and global culture and history. Any brief thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bluerasberry: I am wary of efforts like this and WiR because it starts with a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS premise. The meta page you linked lists people of other ideologies as "barriers" which seems needlessly hostile and would otherwise be considered a personal attack. That said, I think that the content developed should be driven by available source material, not arbitrary quotas. While English-language articles can be translated with their English-language citations to other wikis, compliance with WP:V as it exists in other wikis is best accomplished locally with source material from those languages. I would hope translators would be searching for those en-wp articles that are also supported in the target language's literature thereby enabling editors in other languages to discover sources they can read directly rather than reply upon machine translation. There's also a neo-Colonial edge to the project which I find problematic. Shouldn't we let the foreign-language readership determine which articles they desire rather than have articles chosen by first-world editors? I would start in the target-language wikis looking for requested articles and preponderant red links. Our biases as editors shouldn't determine what happens outside our home wiki under the guise of "diversity." Chris Troutman (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chris troutman: If there is hostility then it is an error and either you or anyone else could remove it. I am not immediately sure what seems negative here.
Wikipedia does not have a philosophy or culture of translation right now. I am not aware of any systematic effort to choose what to translate or how to pass content around.
My objective in encouraging a little translation is to encourage yet more editing and cultural exchange. When there is little content on a subject in any language Wikipedia, then few people want to start engaging. After there is a little information, even if it is low quality, then more people will engage to make that better.
Of course English language Wikipedia is dominant and I do not want that forever. However, Wikipedia is having its 19th birthday this week and still we have major content gaps in many languages with no plan to fix that. Somehow in some way we should plan to get more content into more languages and improve cultural exchange. I am not sure what that looks like, but curating a little content for translation seems like a safe enough low-labor, low-cost initiative for some people to try.
If you have an idea to do things differently then suggest an alternative. Any other options are helpful. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:VITAL? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to side-step the LGBTQ topic, & address the more general issue: where should we encourage article development between Wikipedias of different languages? My answer is that we should encourage articles in a given Wikipedia to give preference to sources in its native language. That is, German Wikipedia articles should prefer sources in German, Russian Wikipedia articles in Russian, etc. I base my answer on finding far too often that instead of researching a given topic -- which means the author will look at materials in their own native language -- the equivalent English Wikipedia article is translated without concern about its quality. I first noticed this problem several years ago when I was working on articles about the Empire of Trebizond, where the most recent work has been published in Modern Greek & Russian. When I looked at the corresponding articles in those languages -- hoping to save myself some time finding & translating sources -- I was surprised to find these articles were translations of the en.wikipedia articles, which at the time was based on a book written in 1926! (Even more depressing was the fact that when I looked at corresponding articles in other language Wikipedias, every one was a translation of the same en.wikipedia article, with little attempt to expand on the material!)

I don't know if this answers your question, Bluerasberry, but I feel if speakers of non-English languages were a little more chauvinistic about their mother tongues, Wikipedia as a whole would be stronger in every topic. -- llywrch (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki99 for world history[edit]

I gave a go at compiling ~99 articles as an attempt at a canon of world history.

Suppose that we imagine a class of educated people who receive a bachelor's degree or equivalent from a university and who have some liberal arts training. This class of people intends to participate in the globalized workforce, with many individuals having a career which includes international collaboration with at least one foreign culture and the collective cohort including individuals who collaborate with every major culture on earth. What 100 topics are useful for such people to know globally? Are there topics which we should expect 95%+ of all such people to know?

For example, can a person be university educated, and traveling around the world doing business or work projects, and participate fully in society if they are completely ignorant that certain classical civilizations ever existed, or that there was a time of colonization, and an age of slavery, and international relations through history? In compiling this list, I attempted to choose topics which both are part of multiple cultures' histories, and which represent most people on earth the most often, and which track the chain of progress through history.

It is not easy to compile lists of this sort and I am sure many people could criticize it. If anyone has criticism, then I would especially like feedback on who has also compiled such a list, if anyone can identify any such similar project for global translation of a canon, and how anyone balanced the representation of the list.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bluerasberry Not bad. Of course I'd nitpick some stuff. history of Tonga, Thailand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Ethipia, West Africa, seem way too minor to include (one article for history by continent would be best, there is history of Europe but not history of Asia?? Also history of Africa, Middle East, Americas...). History of slavery is a minor topic that represents recent Western bias, same for genocides in history (I'd rather go with history of war, history of crime), similar issues I'd see with feminism and human sexuality (human rights too - but I'd keep the latter one as an overarching topic here). History of religion is fine, but dedicating 9 articles to this, probably too much by half if not eight. Listing Native American religion which doesn't exist is a clear evidence of bias (it's a very minor topic for everyone except some American historians); history of United States is much more important and not listed (?). I am not an American but let's face it, US is one of the most important country in the world's history. To have history of China and Russian Empire but not history of US, well, this is a history as endorsed by Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin :P On a side note, take a look at Western canon, very interesting topic, very biased - and then note we don't have an article on world canon. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

note re wiki item[edit]

hey @Bluerasberry:, @Llywrch:, here's a little template that I made up. do you like this? this is my first time at playing around with templates. just thought it'd be nice to work on. feel free to let me know what you think. maybe this might be helpful occasionally, now and then. thanks!!!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sm8900: Talking about principles like this is not usually a part of WikiProject discussion, but if you have interest in this, and you can rally WikiProject contributors to engage with such things, then we are in a strange and appropriate time right now to seek community comment.

Regarding what you wrote, all of this is still part of Wikipedia best practices and I still agree with all of it. These are all great things to say and can inspire people. These are the best we have now, and I am not sure what comes next, but it happens that in a few days there will be a major publication recommending Wikimedia Movement best practices and changes.

If you are interested in strategy and statements of purpose, then I encourage you to watch meta:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations from 20 January 2020 and to comment on it within 5 weeks. This strategy discussion has been in process for 4 years and this is the last phase for comment before the next phase of the process, which is implementation of the recommendations. Many people are anxious about this short comment period, which came to be because of past delays and already planned future deadlines which should not move. If you find an angle in the strategic planning to advocate for the interests of the many history WikiProjects in many languages, then please speak out in comment on the meta page after 20 January and encourage others to do the same.

This is part of a transition. Jimbo had some guiding ideas in the beginning but he has regularly divested responsibility and advocated for more Wikimedia community leadership and control over the movement. If WikiProject history found it meaningful to do so, as a community you could set your own goals and principles, perhaps in the context of these recommendations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anent Wikimedia Movement strategy/best practices: my concern all along has not been about the basic principles or guiding ideals, but about the proposals of how to apply them. I suspect some are using the current exercise to fashion iron rice bowls for themselves, at the expense of the rest of us. -- llywrch (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi folks. thanks for your replies here. Bluerasberry, that is really fascinating to know. I will take a look at that page. thanks!!
Llywrch, you make some valid points as well. it is totally valid to think about and to wonder where this will take us. i suggest we all try to look at this, and see what we can glean from there, and also what we can offer or discuss.
this is an interesting topic. i had totally known about this before. now I'm doubly glad that I posted that template above, just as food for thought. thanks for the great info, again, Bluerasberry! I will take a look there. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Michael E Nolan take a look at the replies above, especially the comment from Bluerasberry about the discussions currently in process, interesting, isn't it?
everyone, I initially posted this template on my own talk-page, then tagged Michael E Nolan to give him a little look-see at this. we both liked it, but we weren't really sure where we could use it. glad that this could lead unexpectedly to some new and interesting topics! thanks for your replies here. let's keep the discussions going. maybe over a nice cup of coffee, too! A small cup of coffee.JPG thanks! Face-smile.svg --Sm8900 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New member introductions[edit]

Bumping thread for 3560 days. Keeping this section here, as a general resource for new member intros and comments. thanks! .Sm8900 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I'm a new member. I joined because I have an interest in improving the religion section, particularly when it comes to including old/lesser-known religions in the religion tree/template. Glad to be here! ArcticSolstice (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please add your introductory comments below[edit]

  • Hi I’m interested in history of all places and periods. The areas I’m most keen to work in are Middle Eastern history and European colonial history. I’m very interested in China and Japan and can help tidy up articles about them, but can’t read Chinese or Japanese sources. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi there, I'm most interested in New Zealand history, however, I also have a general interest in French and premodern history. --Violetnights (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skateboarding Digital History Project[edit]

The Skateboarding Digital History Project (SBDHP), founded in 2018 by wil540, is a research and publishing initiative promoting the digitization of skateboarding history. The goal of the SBDHP is to create and promote the creation of accessible skateboard history online. The project currently focuses on writing wikipedia articles for notable skateboarders and skateboard related items; as well as, leading skateboarding themed edit-a-thons. In October 2019, the Skateboarding Digital History Project and Wikipedia for Educators at Fordham hosted its first edit-a-thon, a Latinx-American Skateboarding themed edit-a-thon, that took place in the Bronx, New York. Articles for Jaime Reyes & Ben Sanchez were written at this edit-a-thon.

Goals for the future

  1. The SBDHP plans to host more edit-a-thons in 2020.
  2. The SBDHP plans to continue publishing and facilitating donations of skateboard photography to Wikimedia Commons.
  3. The SBDHP dreams to translate articles about skateboarding/skateboarders to other languages.

Please reach out with any questions, comments, or suggestions on the talk page or you can email us at:

Follow the SBDHP on instagram at:

Application for WikiProject History Coordinator: Vami_IV[edit]

Grüß Gott,
I am Vami_IV (call me Vami), an editor of seven years and some change with a few Featured Articles to show for it. At time of writing, all of these are architecture articles in Germany and the United States; that's a pretty good summation of my area of most competent interest. That said, I've been awarded a Quarter-Million Award for American military history and am currently working on Simón Bolívar, so history interests me generally. I am also a semi-active member of Women in Red, where I primarily translate articles for Latin American women. To wit, the extent of my WP:HIST-related editing spans from the Early Middle Ages to the present, and mostly in the Americas and Europe.
At Sm8900 (talk)'s request, I'm here to volunteer my time as a Project Coordinator here at WP:HIST. As an acting Coordinator over at WP:MILHIST like Iazyges (talk) (courtesy ping) and Key Editor Gog the Mild (talk) (ditto), I believe I'll make a good fit here. As an added bonus, I have now plenty of experience collaborating with editors on-wiki and on the Discord server to compile research and improve articles. As a Coordinator and a member of the Collaboration Group, I'd be focusing my efforts there and with busywork like assessing articles. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note by Lead Coordinator:

  • APPROVED. Congrats, and welcome @Vami IV:. looking forward to having your valued input here. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Monarchism in France[edit]

Please see this discussion regarding what to do about a botched merge at Monarchism in France. Thanks,

Origin of Songket[edit]

Hi all. There is a discussion at Talk:Songket about the origin of Songket. Your input on that discussion is appreciated. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Human history#Requested move 16 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ) 15:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a page split discussion over a history page has a 144kB readable prose size. Input from history project members would be appreciated. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History-related source at RSN ([edit]

Editors here may be interested in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:The Buddha[edit]

The page which had been Gautama Buddha was unsuccessfully proposed for a change to Siddhartha Gautama, then successfully changed to The Buddha, and is now being proposed for a change to Buddha. Your input and expertise would be most welcome at: Talk:The_Buddha#Requested_move_25_November_2022 Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Articles for improvement star.svg

Please note that Human history, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI teamReply[reply]

Medieval civilizations[edit]

The present concensus recognizes only one civilization for the Middle Ages (the Islamic). Since one page is not sufficient for category, the category for medieval civilizations was deleted. Who ever believes that other civilizations existed in the Middle Ages is invited to Category talk:Civilizations by time.--Maxaxa (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice of RfC at WikiProject Years[edit]

There is an ongoing Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years that may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Input requested[edit]

Hi. Your input is welcome in the thread Talk:World War II#Seeking consensus to implement change in lead sentence. Cheers! --Thinker78 (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New or old placenames[edit]

In an article on an historic event, should the article use the place names of the time of that event, or should they be translated (with all the risk of occasional error) into the name of the place now? If sources use the old place name, should that be modernised?

One could even be concerned that this destroys the principle of verifiability, as if all the place names have been changed from those used in sources, how can anyone check the accuracy of an article.

I am sure that one would still use Constantinople, Byzantium or Istanbul as appropriate. Why, then, is it appropriate to change, for instance Foochow to Fuzhou?

Please may I have some guidance on this as we have one user carrying out multiple changes of Chinese old place names to their modern equivalent. (See [1]) I would guess that this is not a new problem. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ThoughtIdRetired and I discussed this over at my talk page; I think it was mostly just a misunderstanding and things have been cleared up now. TL;DR: I’m aware that historical place names are and should be used in articles pertaining to the time period when that name was in use. Wikipedia’s policy on Chinese romanization could be seen as a bit of an exception to this rule, for reasons I explained on my talk page. ThoughtIdRetired does make a good point, though, that when quotations from English primary sources are used in an article, any obsolete romanizations present in those quotations should be clarified to the reader in some way or another. I’ll be looking back through my recent edits to add those clarifications where necessary. SilverStar54 (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We work in similar fields, and I came across ThoughtIdRetired and SilverStar54's discussion on the latter's talk page as I was concerned about the effect on verifiability of the bare replacement of the long-familiar forms of Chinese place names in articles on historical events. After a dead-end or two, I found what seems to be relevant guidance at MOS:GEO: "In cases where such a historical name is used, it should be followed by the modern name in round brackets (parentheses) on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article." Although that is couched in terms of changes of name, I think it equally appropriate for changes in latinisation, and would, for example, appear as "Foochow (Fuzhou)". I amended a couple of articles accordingly, but will pause now to see where this discussion goes. Or should it be at MOS:GEO? Davidships (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had always understood that as a tertiary source Wikipedia followed the consensus of modern RSs. Hence in a recent series of FAs I had Spain, Gaul, Italy and Cisalpine Gaul; with two of them explained in brackets at first mention - cus that's what the sources do. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems right, but in the circumstances I am speaking of, the RSs are not usually "modern" (as described here). Davidships (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Davidships I think the deciding factor here is whether the specific old romanization of a term is still used in modern historical literature. In a small number of cases, the old romanization of a name have been "long-familiar" enough to survive the overall shift to pinyin. But these cases are extremely few, and it should not be taken for granted that just because all of the English sources written at the time agree on a romanization that this is still widely in use today.
Besides the general policy on Chinese romanization, WP:NCGN discusses this issue more precisely:

"Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods. Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use."

It continues later:

"In some cases it is not the local name but the spelling of the name in English that has changed over time. For example, Nanjing, as the contemporary pinyin spelling, is used for the name of the article rather than Nanking. However, the article on the Treaty of Nanking spells the city as was customary in 1842, because modern English scholarship still does."

Note that this doesn't apply to all romanizations of Chinese terms in a given article, just the specific events/people/etc that are still exceptionally famous under their Wade-Giles/postal/etc names.
So it's important to look to modern English scholarship for guidance. Using the Great Tea Race of 1866 as an example, I spent some time finding academic sources on trade in 1860s China published in the last few decades. I found seven books that used pinyin ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) and two that used obsolete romanization systems ([9], [10]). To check that this wasn't confirmation bias, I searched Google Scholar for works published since 2000 with the keywords "Fuzhou 1866" and "Foochow 1866". There were more than three times as many results for "Fuzhou 1866" than "Foochow 1866". Even if you push the earliest publication date back to 1970 (i.e., before pinyin was even around), the total results for "Fuzhou 1866" still outnumber "Foochow 1866" by 2.5 times. Ngram paints a similar picture. For geographic place names, it seems pretty clear to me that the modern scholarly consensus is to use pinyin.
Therefore, in regards to verifiability, using Wade-Giles or postal throughout an article would create as many problems as it would solve. If you're still concerned about readers getting confused when they go to check sources, there are lots of ways to mention/clarify the older romanizations that don't involve using them throughout the article.
SilverStar54 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just picking up on the date of sources for Great Tea Race of 1866, the main and most authoritative sources are books written some while ago: Basil Lubbock, The China Clippers written in 1914 and reprinted in 1981; David MacGregor, The Tea Clippers, Their History and Development 1833–1875, written 1983. Many of the other references are illustrative contemporary newspaper reports (in that they illustrate points made in the books). McGregor is still the unsurpassed source for this sort of maritime history. (The study of trade is a broader subject, but MacGregor may well be the person who has delved deepest into the records of shipping companies, for instance in his China Bird. He took the view than no-one could judge exactly how much profit tea clippers made – we know their gross receipts but not actual costs – and I have not seen anything that contradicts that view.) Most of the new work in maritime history that goes beyond his research tends to be based on maritime archaeology. Perhaps some undiscovered diary or similar account may come to light, but the probability is low.
Hence any reader who looks at Wikipedia in conjunction with sources will need to be able to relate whatever place name is in the article with those in their source. Since old newspapers are now so accessible, those sources may well be contemporary. I have no particular preference on how it is done, but it should be an accessible translation between contemporary and modern usage. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of that is well understood SilverStar54, and I am not attempting to turn back any clock, or obscure the pinyin names. But, for me, you are answering the wrong question. In the edits which concern me, you removed completely all mention of the names actually used in the sources. I think that that is unhelpful to the reader and contrary to WP:V principles, so consequently suggested using the style "Foochow (Fuzhou)" - or "Fuzhou (Foochow)" if preferred - along MOS lines; obviously the connection has to be made only once in an article (or per section in some long list articles that are not intended to be read through). So please say whether you actually object to using this approach. Davidships (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Davidships I apologize for misinterpreting what you said. To be crystal clear, I don't object to "Fuzhou (Foochow)", and I agree that my original edits were too hasty. I plan to go back and add clarifications where they seem necessary (i.e., articles that cite a large number of older sources). This is what I meant when I said "ThoughtIdRetired does make a good point, though, that when quotations from English primary sources are used in an article, any obsolete romanizations present in those quotations should be clarified to the reader in some way or another. I’ll be looking back through my recent edits to add those clarifications where necessary." Is this what you meant?
What I was objecting to was using older romanizations throughout the article ("Foochow (Fuzhou)"). SilverStar54 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you - that's fine by me. I'll share the task, and do those that are on my watchlist. Davidships (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for help at List of folk heroes[edit]

Hello! I recently came across List of folk heroes, which had been trashed by a user who removed all references, categories, internal formatting, etc. and replaced it with an indiscriminate and unsourced list of random historical figures, fictional characters, and entirely made up hoax characters. I reverted it to the last stable version with references, only to find that this version is still sorely lacking in referencing and contains many kings and such. I have no idea how to tell if these people are folk heroes or not unless their article literally says "folk hero" in it. Therefore, I'm here to ask for help!

Its linked WikiProjects are WikiProject Folklore, which is inactive, and WikiProject lists, which has a rather inactive talk page. If this isn't the right WikiProject, please let me know where I should go. Thank you! Blue Edits (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list is that bad that I am a little surprised to find it still exists. The "definition" at the top is a non-definition and virtually all of those on the list are not folk heroes. I don't see why someone should be in the list unless there is a RS which uses the phrase "folk hero" or something very similar. We're a tertiary source, our deciding someone is a folk hero without a solid cite to back this is just OR. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it be extreme to WP:TNT it at AfD? Even if the OR editor leaves it alone it's hardly in a verifiable state. Also, the page history has been flooded and is essentially unusable. Blue Edits (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]