Wiki143 talk:WikiProject Former countries

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/Sidebar}}

Requested move at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025

File:Information.svg

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Heraklios 16:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Kingdom of Nri

Kingdom of Nri has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Batavian Republic

Batavian Republic has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Founding of Moldavia

Founding of Moldavia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Improving niche subject (originally posted on Teahouse)

Hello. First of all sorry for my English. I am currently writing my thesis on this subject, and I have trouble switching to a different style than my usual one, so I can't improve the subject myself out of fear of being wrongly accused of plagiarism (or of simply using Wikipedia instead of doing my own research on current academic consensus). However, I can provide the necessary sources for the improvement of pages relating to the Muisca confederation: All of them are publicly accessible and I hope a devoted editor has the time and energy to read them, and then to change the Wikipedia page(s) on the Muisca for the better. Indeed, there have been many changes in Muisca scholarship recently (this does not mean that the traditional historical narratives are necessarily wrong). Here are the sources, they will contextualise everything and are fairly easy to read: https://www.banrepcultural.org/biblioteca-virtual/credencial-historia/numero-44/los-senores-muiscas (for this link you will have to refuse options for it to work); https://www.academia.edu/22398553/Mercados_poblamiento_Muiscas ; and https://sites.pitt.edu/~ccapubs/pdfdownloads/PITTmem09-Langebaek_1995.pdf (the last one will take some time loading). I know this demand might be bizarre, but it comes from the heart. It hurts seeing niche subjects cite almost only short museum pages/blogs/tourism pages instead of the detailed studies that exist about the muisca just as they do about the Aztec and Inca. I don’t have much time to argue about it a lot, and as I said I am not able to do the changes (big) myself (though believe me, I would love to, and I will probably one day). If a devoted user speaking basic Spanish and English with the time and energy necessary would have the kindness to read the three sources, I will be eternally grateful. There is MUCH more to this than 2 studies and a short article, but this can be a good way to improve Wikipedia by being informed about the muisca. After having finished, I am sure the editor in question will have the exact same eagerness as I have to improve Wikipedia pages related to the muisca. Maybe other editors with knowledge of niche subjects know what I am talking about. Kind regards, 80.187.83.10 (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on the fate of WP:PRUSSIA

As this project is defunct, it may be a good idea to revive WikiProject Prussia, and transform it into a task force within Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries.
Alternatively, it could stay independent.
Does anybody object? If so, what are some other good options? wikipedia-kxeon  mailbox 14:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I dont have a strong opinion on this but I guess that it could work as a task force of this project 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a task force, but it would still need active participants. CMD (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Should I ping everyone of whom might be one, to here?

I made a list of the activity of the members:

1. [?] Template:Ping (Inactive since December 2024 - Talk page says they're busy)
2. [?] [!] (added recently)
3. [?] [!] (infobox on page, active)
4. [?] Template:Ping (Inactive since October 2024)
5. [?] Template:Ping (active contributer on Prussia up to 2024 when he switched to Italy; still active to this day)
6. [X] (infrequent since 2023, 15 edits in 2024, and only 2 edits in April in 2025)
7. [?] [!] (active, but not on Prussia)
8. [?] Template:Ping (active; recently on Silesia)
9. [?] [!] (infobox on page, but seemingly on Mexico)
10. [?] Template:Ping (inactive since November 2024)
11. [X] (extremely infrequent. one edit in August of 2025; 13 in 2023; 1 in 2022. he was active in 2019 and before)
12. [?] [!] (no infobox; but active)
13. [?] [!] (also no infobox, but still. despite that though they too dont seem to be doing much to Prussia)
14. [?] [!] (active, but not on Prussia; rather, sports, nobility and religion)
15. [?] [!] (active, but not on Prussia)

• O = Yes
• ? = Maybe
• X = No
• ! = Responded

Alrighty, so this *may* look bleak, but maybe pinging them will still be a good idea. But considering how many "maybe"s there are (as I dont know); maybe you should give the green light first. wikipedia-kxeon  mailbox 21:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I think that they should be pinged 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I spent several years editing around late-mediæval and early modern European history, but I don't edit so much in that area anymore. Realistically, it is unlikely that I would be making much contribution to a reinvigorated task force. Sorry. (ETA: But thank you for pinging me and good luck!) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a better idea would be to make WikiProject Prussia a task force of WikiProject Germany. WikiProject Former countries, itself, is a pretty inactive project, generally speaking. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a small ping and short explanation on their talk-pages might be in order, yes. Not everyone has notifications on by default.

Though speaking of me, I'm constantly editing mostly historical stuff ever since – So I'm never really sleeping. ✔

However, life still asks for its needs for some time here and there anyway. So I think Ejgreen77's idea with the Wikiproject Germany sounds good – Especially since we're living in times, were Wikimedia got basically hijacked and now sees itself to support political narratives … Smartcom5 ^(Talk?) 12:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me! I've stayed relatively active with WP:Prussia but most of the articles I've written or edited have been biographies of Prussian citizens (like Edwin Henckel von Donnersmarck and David de Pury). I think overall, if it's been fairly inactive, a task force might be a good idea! I agree with the above statement by Smartcom5 that it would probably be more affective under WP:Germany than WP:Former Countries. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe the best option would be Ejgreen77's idea but if that does not work out Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries would be better then letting it die. And sorry for not being that active with the project and I will work on changing that Von bismarck (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I am active enough to really chip in here with an opinion. But I am very glad to see that people still care about this content on Wikipedia :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m similar to the editor above. I’m not active enough here to weigh in, but it is quite wonderful to see this project getting some attention and love, it’s great to see! Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 19:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m not active enough to weigh in, so I’m pretty ambivalent. If I had to pick, I’d say we should merge with Wikiproject Germany, that way we can recruit more people. Cowinatree (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of the Soviet Union (1964–1982)

History of the Soviet Union (1964–1982) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)