Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russian history

This page is for discussion of all matters related to Wikiproject Russian History MarshallPoe 14:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our banner reads, in part, "a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of tulips." Tulips???

Changed Tulips to Russian History here and in the template - thanks for pointing it out. I'm not sure how to locate the pages, if any, which already have the incorrect template added. Phaedrus86 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing it. I had added the banner to an article before the change, and it looks like it was automatically updated.--Hafar 01:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tulips" was my fault. I just copied the template from the Wikiproject help page (with tulips), went to feed my cats, and forgot to up date it. In other words, I'm an idiot. Thanks for updating it, Pheadrus. MarshallPoe 14:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More important question: If an article has been 'claimed' by another WP project (Ivan IV falls under the biography and military history projects, for example)do we need to talk to those projects before adding the banner and editing the articles? --Hafar 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I've been adding the banner to Talk pages and have seen many with multiple projects. It seems to me a case of "the more, the merrier." MarshallPoe 14:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Profiles

Guys (those in red ink :)), could you please create profiles for yourselves? I think we can all benefit from knowing each other just a little bit better. Thank you! KNewman 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where to Place the Banner

You say "Place the Russian History WikiProject banner on the TALK PAGE of every entry tagged with Category:History of Russia". How about articles that are not tagged with Category:History of Russia, but are about Russia and its people? Please, clarify. KNewman 17:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The answer, I think, is that the banner should be on the talk page of every Russian history related page. I've changed the front page to reflect this. Using the "History of Russia" category page is just a way to find Russian history related pages that need the banner. MarshallPoe 20:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration

Are we following LOC transliteration? If so, what do we do with an article ("Andrey Kurbsky") where the title itself is mistransliterated? If we change it to Andrei Kurbskii, will people looking under the former spelling still find it? (At the moment, if one searches according to the correct spelling, nothing comes up.)--Hafar 06:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the disadvantages of wiki search engine. If you make a spelling mistake, it won't find anything. They should really address that issue. KNewman 11:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason not to follow LOC trans other than the "former (incorrect) spelling" issue? It seems to me that there are ample ways to get to "Andrey Kurbsky" from "Andrei Kurbskii." Seems to me we should go with LOC. MarshallPoe 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Definitely LOC. It's simply a question of people being able to find things easily. Is it difficult to set up something so that a search for 'Kurbsky' (or 'Tolstoy,' etc)is redirected to the article with the proper spelling? I know it's possible, Andrei Kurbsky redirects to Andrey Kurbsky. (although a search for Kurbskii leads only to the page on Dan Waugh)How do we set up redirection of that sort? It may not be readily apparent to all users that searching for 'Kurbsk*' is the best idea.--Hafar 19:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Gentlemen, you can find more at Wikipedia:Redirect. But it doesn't mean you can create redirects for entries like Andre Koorbskii, Andreii Kurbskyy etc. You have to understand that if some people have no idea how to spell someone's name, they have to use other sources to find out the most commonly-used spelling of this name in English (or whatever language) and then search the Wikipedia for the article on this person. You shouldn't create redirects that are similar in spelling to Andrei Kurbsky. Does it all make sense :)? KNewman 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, I didn't know how to set such things up. I agree that a redirect for Andrei Kurbsky does not make sense, but it probably predates this project.--Hafar 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I mean is that a redirect Andrei Kurbsky to Andrey Kurbsky is fine (Andrei and Andrey are both used in English quite often), that's why it exists. Redirects for the rest of the possible spellings would be nonsense (Koooorbskyy and the like). Examples may be numerous: Smirnov and Smirnoff (fine), Khrushchev and Khruschev (fine), George Bush and George Boosh (do not create a redirect), Condoleezza Rice and Condolisa Rice (do not) etc. Common sense, really. KNewman 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Clear enough, thank you. To fix this particular problem, I did the following: Moved the former article to "Andrei Kurbskii" which, I read, has the effect of setting up a redirect from the old article to the new one. I'm hoping that fixes things without breaking anything.

--Hafar 05:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion

Maybe we should just pick a badly written article or a stub on the Russian history and try to improve it collectively instead of tagging ALL of the artciles pertaining to Russia? It'll last forever... But then again, if my suggestion passes, we'll roll back to the Collaboration of the Week thing (Wikipedia:Collaborations), which used to be so popular in Wikipedia and later died down due to the lack of enthusiasm. KNewman 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian SSR

Hey all, how come Armenian SSR was tagged? Are we assuming Soviet Union == Russia? - Francis Tyers · 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francis. Sort of. I think Rus', Appanage Rus', Muscovy (and all its territories), the Empire, the USSR (all of it), and *some* of the former territories of the USSR fall under our purview. This purview is *not* exclusive. We aren't imperialists! We just want to help keep the articles accurate. If the Armenian History Wikipedia Project (should such ever exist) wants to monitor the "Armenian SSR" article as well, that would be great. The more the merrier. I'd be interested to see what others think. MarshallPoe 14:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been tagged by the projects for Armenia and the Soviet Union - I think it falls under their purview rather than ours, and I half believe it should be removed. I tagged the page for the RSFSR but deliberately left the pages for the other SSRs alone as I wasn't sure what to do with them. I don't think our purview should be restrictive but a line has to be drawn somewhere - are we concerned with the history of Russia (which would include Rus', Muscovy et al), or are we concerned with the history of the Soviet Union - which already has it's own Wikiproject? Perhaps discussion of this, also, should move to the talk page of the article concerned? Adereterial 13:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Granted, but I would say that in marginal cases (like this) the more projects involved in monitoring articles, the better. All any project tag means (IMO) is "We want to help" (NOT "We own this"). If multiple projects want to help, all the better. As long as everyone maintains NPOV (which we will), multiple projects bring more attention to the tagged articles and, by "Wikimagic," more attention should result in better articles. I imagine that someone will get POed about our tag on a site that they think "their" project "owns," but I think we should deal with that on a case by case basis. MarshallPoe 15:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Scope ==

Just what exactly is in scope of this project? I saw someone tagging Sergei Eisenstein as part of this project; while I'm not opposed to this (he did make some excellent movies about Russia's history after all), he wasn't that crucial with respect to Russian history himself (as opposed to Lenin, Stalin etc). Errabee 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]