Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russian history/Archive 1

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

Nicholas II of Russia
Could someone please interfere and prevent users from adding completely irrelevant image galleries to this article. I've mentioned my concerns on Talk:Nicholas II of Russia.Thanks -- Rustam  02:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Banner
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)


 * 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)


 * "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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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) --Hafar 05:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Gentlemen, you can find more at 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.

There is a Wikipedia page on "Romanizing" Cyrillic (Russian) script: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanization_of_Russian Allen1861 18:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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 (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)

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


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * I agree with MarshallPoe here. Russian history has long been understood to include the history of its empire and of the Soviet Union. This is a convention, though, not a claim to "ownership." Peshkov 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This "convention" is wrong and potentially offensive, even if it is clear through this discussion page that the honest authors clearly mean no offense. An ancyclopedia exists to get things right, not to propagate misunderstandings and conventions.  The name should be changed or the scope limited to reflect reality rather than convention.  86.6.11.56 08:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To limit the scope would wrongly efface the fact that Russia WAS an empire, that "Russian history" involved imperial, even colonial, relationships (often very oppressive) with nations besides ethnic Russians. But what name change would work? "The History of Russia and its Empire" works only until 1917. "Soviet History" works only 1917-1991. "Russian, Russian Imperial, and Soviet History" might work but is rather unwieldy. Also, to call this project "Russian History" and to include non-Russian areas and peoples reflects historical terminology (Rossiia, i.e. "Russia", often stood for the whole empire and still today stands for many areas in which ethnic Russians do not predominate). By the way, it seems to me that offense should only be taken (and my ancestors were themselves non-Russian subjects of the empire) if it was said that Armenia, for example, could ONLY be discussed by the Russian History project. --Peshkov 22:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * I will withdraw my name from the memberlist if it all comes down to simple tagging. I don't see any sense in it. KNewman 13:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, tagging isn't all that is planned: "This WikiProject aims to add, improve and monitor articles concerning Russian History in all periods." Tagging, I think, is just for the purpose of cataloging everything we have to work on.--Hafar 18:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What Hafar said. IMO, we need to find out how well Russian history is currently covered in WP, then we can focus on those areas that are weak. That's why tagging is the first task. Also, producing a catalogue of all the Russian history pages will help experts (the professors we are targeting on H-EarlySlavic and H-Russia) determine what they can do within their specialties. Besides, I seem to be the only one tagging en masse (I've tagged approximately 600 articles so far). If you (KNewman) want to do something else, that's fine too. As for the question of scope, I think we want to be as catholic as possible inorder to draw as many people to the project as possible. As I've said, the tag doesn't say "We own this," it says "We just want to help." -MarshallPoe 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just in case - a user can monitor articles by adding them to his/her watchlist (Help:Watching pages). KNewman 19:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll explain why I tagged Eisenstein, if it helps? Firstly, his films form a major resource for my current works, yet I know too little about the man himself - the article is tagged as requiring cleanup, which is surely the main aim of this project? Secondly, and most importantly, his films - and in particular October - were crucial in influencing how the Soviet (and Western, for that matter) people viewed their Revolution. For that reason, IMO, he warrants inclusion. Thirdly - whilst I don't currently have the knowledge or time to revise the article myself, perhaps someone involved in this project (or who later becomes involved) may do so, and we all benefit as a result. Adereterial 20:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It becomes more unclear by the moment. Now Modest Mussorgsky is tagged as in scope. This is rapidly becoming a clone of Wikiproject Russia, and I don't see the added value of this project anymore. Errabee 00:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the added value: it brings Russian historians and people interested in Russian history to Wikipedia. If you look at the "members" list, you will see a lot of new names, that is, new to Wikipedia. Many of these people are professors and students of Russian history (I know many of them personally--I recruited them). I'm sure that some of them have more than a passing interest in the history of Russian music. I, btw, taught Russian history for years at the college level, and I always did a lecture in the survey on 19th century Russian culture, including music. Hence, Mussorgsky belongs. As I've said, if the WikiProject Russia, or WikiProject Russian Music, or WikiProject Mussorgsky, or any other project wants to put its banner on Mussorgsky, great. We could use the help. The idea is to improve the Russian historical content in Wikipedia. Anyone can participate, and everyone is invited to do so. -MarshallPoe 13:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically, what you're saying is that you're creating a clone of the WikiProject Russia, as anything related to Russia is also related to Russian history. You just aim at other participants. No thanks, one project is more than enough. Errabee 14:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree a defined scope is needed, to be honest. Not everything related to Russia needs tagging as within the scope of this project. I strongly suggest that we collaboratively decide on the scope and stick to it, and discuss marginal cases here and remove the tags if necessary. Otherwise we'll end up tagging everything related to Russia whether it's historical or not. We must limit the scope or we'll never, ever achieve anything other than adding a banner to every page, and there seems little point expending energy when all we'll do is become clones of WikiProject Russia and Soviet Union.Adereterial 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How’s this for a first suggestion as to scope: ‘Any person, place, thing or event that might reasonably be included in a college course on Russian history.’   This excludes a lot that is Russian but not ‘historical,’ e.g., Russian pop stars, Russian sports teams, Russian companies, Russian business people, Russian drinks, Russian cloths, Russian highways, Russian mountain ranges, etc., etc.  Still, there is going to be some overlap, particularly where the person, place, thing or event continues to exist today, though it was important in ‘Russian history’ (e.g., Moscow, Gorbachev). Thoughts? -MarshallPoe 13:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's better - in which case, it would exclude, in my opinion, the Armenian SSR as discussed above, which I would doubt would get more than a passing mention at best in any course on Russian history. Also, for the benefit of those who aren't in the US - could you clarify that 'college' means education post-18? I assume it does. Adereterial 18:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A suggestion regarding the scope of the project. We need to break it up into higher and lower priorities: For example: a high priority may be articles that fall within the scope of historical study (the analysis of specific eras and events in the Russian history). This may be political, social and cultural history. A lower priority, but still within the scope of the project may be biographical articles (for example, Mussorgsky, Stalin, Witte). They have a definite connection to the political, social and cultural history of Russia. Russian geography (highways, mountain ranges, etc.) is definitely out. Russian food and drink is definitely out, unless we are discussing them in a context of cultural history. Current Russian personalities is a bit of a grey area. Putin, Yeltsin, Gorbachev, Khodorkovsky have historical dimension, as they started exerting their influence since mid-1980s. We need to decide on these. Any suggestions? IgorYeykelis 02:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Indentation
I see many comments on this talk page use unordered lists for indentation by inserting '*' at the start of the paragraph. While this works and therefore must be considered a good solution, it is more common to use the indentation operator ':'. The advantage is you don't get a superfluous dot which makes it a dot point, and it is therefore easier to read. Here is an example - edit the page to see how it is done.
 * This is indented
 * This is indented another level. Phaedrus86 22:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer, Phaedrus86. I'll use this form from now on. -MarshallPoe 22:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Next Tasks (After Tagging)
Once the tagging is done (soon), I'm going to write the members of both H-EarlySlavic and H-Russia (>2000 scholars) a short note saying "If you want to see what's in Wikipedia on Russian History, go to this page." My hope is that some of them will look for their specialities, see that there is much to be done, and join the project. Whatever happens, we need to think about what our next (post-tagging) task is going to be. Thoughts? -MarshallPoe 13:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)it
 * Perhaps the next task could be to identify which articles need the most work, and then work collaboratively using the discussion boards to revise these articles. That wouldn't preclude working on other articles, but it seems wise to me to start with those articles which have major problems. Alternatively, perhaps consider a search for what is not currently present at all on Wikipedia and work towards filling the gaps. There is, though, no reason not to run both at the same time. Adereterial 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The one thing that we would need to do is to start looking at the actual articles within the Russian History domain. How are they written, what is the content?. Also I suggest that we start participating in the discussions (see discussion page on these articles). Sometimes these discussions give an indication on the direction that the article might take in its evolution. We as historians might guide the article into a more balanced and nuanced direction by participating in the discussion as well as in editing the actual articles. Also, from what I saw in the Russian History domain in Wikipedia so far, it is extensive and there are lots of "white spots" there. This will need to be an ongoing project, and we will need to approach it gradually. In other words, we should not aim to rewrite the whole article at once (unless this is the only thing that we do :) ); instead we look at the article and see if there are things there that make a particular article problematic as a work of history. These things may include
 * factual errors;
 * important areas that are are not covered but should;
 * no references.
 * We start with these lesser things and go for larger chunks (like restructuring articles or the whole domain) as we become more confident with this domain. IgorYeykelis 06:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would assume by now that those that have been tagging will be aware of stubs, blank spots etc which could be worked on by this project. I'd suggest compiling a suggestions list for topics requiring either expansion or major revision. Those who have the knowledge or interest could then collaboratively participate (on the discussion boards for those topics) to expand or revise those articles. I would also suggest including here a 'tasks completed' and 'works in progress' list which could be updated every time something major is done, so we keep a firm record of what's going on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adereterial (talk • contribs) 02:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

For those who don't know
Just want to make sure that new Russophilliac :) (is that the word?) members know about this Portal:Russia/New article announcements. This way you'll be able to monitor what is currently being done regarding articles on Russia in general (not just history topics). KNewman 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that most people in here found out about this WikiProject from New Article announcements. --Ineffable3000 21:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Lobachevsky Article
I think it would make sense to remove the article about Russian mathematician Nikolai Lobachevsky from the scope of wikiproject Russian History and transfer it to wikiproject Mathematics since Lobachevsky is important because of his mathematical ideas, research, and discoveries, not because of his impact on Russian history. NikolaiLobachevsky 2:34:59 12/26/2006 (UTC)


 * It should be pointed out that it's perfectly normal for an article to be within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Let's not have any turf wars, please. Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to have a turf war, the wikiproject about Russian history and the wikiproject about mathematics are both good, I just don't see how Lobachevsky is relevant to Russian history, his importance is in the history of mathematics, not his Russian identity or his impact on Russian history. NikolaiLobachevsky 3:18:19 12/26/2006 (UTC)


 * Well, he's Russian and historical, basically; I doubt that this project is trying for a more complex definition of scope than that. ;-)
 * (Everything is possible, of course; but I'm probably not the best person to comment on that point.) Kirill Lokshin 03:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a user account?
I read about this WikiProject in the latest issue of the Signpost and decided to check it out. Once here, I noticed that there were a very large number of redlinks for user's talk pages, so I decided to give everybody a proper Wikipedia welcome. What I found a little odd was that a couple of the people listed as "members" did not show up as User accounts. That could mean that they did not type there user name correctly (spaces, and except for the first letter, upper and lower case letters are significant), or it could mean they have not yet signed up for a user account under that name. The following are the names that did not have user accounts: User:Ostrowski162, User talk:WalterMoss, User:Jennifer L. Hanuschak, User:Nathaniel Knight, and User:ChrisDickmeyer.

PS: I hope that this group does very well, and that it becomes a model for the participation of other academic disciplines on the Wikipedia. Blank Verse 05:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Blank Verse. Thanks for sending the greetings. I know the good folks in question (all Russian historians) and will contact them by email. And thanks for your best wishes on the project. MarshallPoe 15:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems from  that Christine Dickmeyer is registered as User:Theharleyc.  Good luck on the project. Superm401 - Talk 00:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Banner Problem
For some reason the image "George_novgorod.jpg" has disappeared from the project banner template. It appears in the code (that is, the template includes "Image:George_novogorod.jpg"), but the image doesn't appear in the template. Can't figure it out. Anyone have a fix? MarshallPoe 14:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Templates on the project page look ok. Can you give a page and a template where the problem occurs? Phaedrus86 22:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, the template is fine. There is something wrong with Firefox on my computer.  MarshallPoe 13:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

English Versions of Russian Names -
I am against articles pertaining to Russia being listed under the English version of a name.....for example Michael for Mikhail, George for Georgy, Paul for Pavel, and so forth.....

I noticed this when I looked at the article on Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia....the man's name was Mikhail, not Michael - his parents did NOT name him Michael. It is the same with the article on Grand Duke George Alexandrovich of Russia - the man's name was Georgy, not George!

Another example of this is the page on the Mikhailovsky Palace, which is put under the ridiculously incorrect name of Michael Palace.

I feel that the actual Russian name should be used - even though the English derivation is the same in essence, they are still different names nonetheless!!

P.S. - My Grandfather's name was Riccardo, not Richard, and he would have raged had someone made an English version of his name, as they are still different names.

--Mrlopez2681 09:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

HEAR HEAR!!!!! The same thing annoys me with other European history things. Kaiser WILHELM II, NOT WILLIAM II!

Military history of the Soviet Union FAR
Military history of the Soviet Union has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Russian-Circassian War
I have tagged the Russian-Circassian War article as needed the attention of an expert on the subject. I have contacted two of the historians who are mentioned in the references section, inviting them to take a look at it, but I would still appreciate someone from this project taking a look? Thanks, SGGH 15:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Maksim of Orenburg
An article that is in this project, Maksim of Orenburg, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Maksim of Orenburg. Thank you. -- ArglebargleIV 13:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Russian-Circassian War
I am working on the Russian-Circassian War article, hoping to get it to FA some day, all contributions and thoughts welcome! SGGH 11:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Name for pre-SSR: "Belorussia" vs. "Byelorussia" in US English
I've posted this query on the Belarus discussion (Talk) page and would appreciate input from the Russian History WikiProject crew: I need to know the preferred spelling in US English for this region's name when it was part of Imperial Russia. Is there a particular etymology for either of these variants that indicates which might be the more authoritative? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 06:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

1993 Russian constitutional crisis
1993 Russian constitutional crisis has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Time of Troubles needs updating
This article uses 1911 Britannica and 19th century historians as only references, yet some argue that it is neutral and reliable. Please comment and - hopefully - improve this article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Russian History WikiProject banner
The Russian History WikiProject banner has been placed on all pages contained in the History of Russia Category by the time-stamp of this comment. (This doesn't include sub-categories) Elfalem 05:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Great Battle of Neva
I have been reading some articles of the Russian Wars in this Wikipedia serie and regarding what I have read I just begun to think how reliable the Russian views expressed in the articles really are. Maybe much better results can be achieved if two opponents views found from available sources are shown in same article just for comparation. For example the reader who read of The Great Battle of Neva is leaved to opinion the young Aleksandr Novgorodian in 1240 achived a great victory over the Swedes, Norvegians and Finns coming with tens if not hundreds of ships to Neva River where in confluence of Inkere (Izhora) River Aleksandr won them. The only available source so far I have found, is a small mention of bishop Tuomas (Tomas) from Åbo / Turku in Finland own arranged crusade without any help of the Swedish King to Neva in 1240 using Roman Catholic Church money. The idea was to turn pagan "Inkerikot" (Ingermanlanders) to Roman Catholic Chistianity, not threating Great Novgorod. It seems that in reality this was a only a small shirmish nothing else. Bishop Tuomas with his men withdrew after this shirmish, with so little of importance, that it was not even mentioned in any Swedish sources. But for bishop Tuomas it had its own effects. Holy Seat in Rome wanted to know where he had spent church gold. He had to resign in 1245. As far as it is known he left not any written memories behind. That is for sure that Birger Jarl did not have anything to do with this unlucky mission. If he had it would for sure been mentioned also in Swedish or Finnish written sources. Also Aleksandr´s victory in the Great Battle of Peipsenjärv in 1242 has given a totally different story of the battle which never happened lives still strong in Estonia. Told at first by the Estonian fishermen who watched what happened and then moved from generation to next generation up to this date. Peharps the language barrier is one restricting factor when looking available written sources.

Several more recent scholars, most notably John Fennell, have argued that the Battle on the Neva as well as the Battle on the Ice have been blown way out of proportion in terms of the actual size of the battles and their importance to Russian history. The battle on the Neva was more a skirmish and the Battle on the Ice involved a much smaller contingent of Teutonic knights than is usually believed. Mcpaul1998 07:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A question of style
Via taking part in the history of the Orthodox Church in Russia and its border states like Estonia and Finland, I wonder, when discussing the Russian emperors or tsars, which form Wikipedia prefers to be used: tsar and tsarist, or emperor and imperial? I have changed in the article of the Estonian Orthodox Church tsar into emperor, but I have later started to doubt my decision. --Tellervo 08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The correct usage depends on the the chronological period. The rulers of unified Russia before Peter I (the Great) were Tsars. Peter himself was Tsar before 1721 and an Emperor from that year. All other pre-revolutionary rulers after Peter were Emperors. Not sure though if Wikipedia makes this distinction. --IgorYeykelis 10:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Bukovsky
The article Vladimir Bukovsky is under intensive edition by various users. I updated it, but copyedit may be required. Will you look at it? Please, help to keep it neutral. Consider to include it in your watch list. The history of Russia may depend on the ability of people to get the complete and accurate information about past century and recent events. (Even if you are not Russian, you may be interested to have a prosper and peaceful neibour.) dima 11:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Grigori Rasputin current ACID nomination
The article above is currently being considered for imporvement as a part of the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. Any help in pinpointing work required on the article, and if you are so inclined working on the article in the improvement drive, would be greatly appreciated. John Carter 17:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

FAR on History of Russia
History of Russia has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Colchicum 17:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

History of Russia
Just to let everyone know, we're working on this article a hell of a lot through the irc channel #wikipedia-spotlight (see also: WP:Spotlight). We've added pretty much all of the 105 citations there are now, but we still have 300+ to go and we could use all the help we could get in citing this massive article, if it's not cited then it has a very good (99%) chance of losing it's FA status, and such a critical article has no excuse not being featured - so please help us out.-- daniel  folsom  03:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sybirkas, Syberian prisoners or...?
Please comment at the naming discussion at Talk:Sybiraks.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

RM at Talk:Polish Expedition to Kiev
RM in progress, please comment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical actresses
Hello, i have a suggestion; why not write something of actresses in the Russian history? I think it would be interesting to have some examples of actresses (and, of course, actors as well!) in 18th and 19th century Russia! In the 18th century, perhaps many of them were foreigners, but if they worked in the country for a long time, they should still be counted as Russian. I know nothing about the subject, but i think it would be interesting to read about, and thought i should suggest it!--85.226.235.222 11:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Create one single WP:Russia project?
I have been editing Russian aviation articles for a while now, doing bits and pieces before I delve in and do total re-writes in an attempt to bring these articles up to par - Aeroflot will be my first big one shortly. I was having a look at some of the Russian airport articles as part of getting info together for the re-writes, and I noticed that many of these articles are hopelessly out-of-date and are basically based upon information which US/NATO obtained/released when information did not flow freely. The same goes for the Russian aircraft articles, take a look at Tupolev Tu-95 for a perfect example, it is entirely written from a NATO perspective, with no information on where these aircraft are based, what squadrons, etc. Compare to the American equivalent, the B-52. Going thru tonnes of Russian articles, I was actually very surprised to find 3 articles that one would probably expect to be featured articles are not; those being Russia, Moscow and Russian language (yes the language article lost FA status 24 hours ago). I was also surprised to find that many articles I expected to exist do not; prime example being many of the Federal government ministries. Then there are other problems such as:


 * Naming conventions - very little continuity and no real guidelines for Russian names and articles in wikipedia as a whole - an example is here.
 * Categorisation - naming conventions will help somewhat - following other naming conventions will help too - an example of poor categorisation throughout Russian articles - Category:Russian_people
 * Article assessment - there are no guidelines for this, and it has resulted in some unusual results. Guidelines are needed.
 * Article review - there are no guidelines specific to Russian articles and with more than one project, other projects won't necessarily know of review requests. Additionally, because of the number of projects with very little scope in each, wider community views can be missed. For example, Russian language was a featured article until 23 August (yesterday). It's featured article review, unfortunately it went unannounced on all Russian projects, apart from this corner
 * Collaboration - there is none to very little collaboration on Russian content between the various projects and unfortunately article quality, and perhaps stability, will suffer for it.
 * Recruitment/outreach - As we are members of various Russian projects, we took the time to add our name to a list, because we have an interest in a certain (or all) aspect/s of Russia. New members are needed, but how will they find the projects? There needs to be co-ordination to 'recruit' new members.
 * Scope - just what is the scope for the various projects? WikiProject Russian federal subjects has a very very narrow somewhat defined scope; WikiProject Russian history has a hazy 'historical' scope; a question being raised here.

What I would suggest, rather what I am suggesting, is the following projects be merged into WikiProject_Russia and for it to be co-ordinated much like any other all-encompassing project. The projects I am suggest to be merged are:


 * WikiProject_Russia - main project
 * WikiProject Russian federal subjects
 * WikiProject Russian history
 * Portal:Russia

Other projects which can be used as guides on how to structure the project would be:


 * WikiProject Australia
 * Portal:Australia - a featured portal

Of course there needs to be concensus from all projects for a merge and structures be discussed, etc, but firstly, there needs to be discussion on the pros and cons of such an idea. I have posted this on the other project talk pages, and have asked that all discussion take place here so that we all projects can read off the same page. --Russavia 16:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

FAR of Dmitri Shostakovich
Dmitri Shostakovich has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Eusebeus 15:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

FAR History of post-Soviet Russia
The History of post-Soviet Russia article has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Miyokan 08:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nikolai Evreinov request
Hello. I'm putting together a brief article on the Russian theatre director Nikolai Evreinov. I've cut and pasted Николай Николаевич ЕВРЕИНОВ from the web as the Russian original, but wondered if someone here could confirm it's correct for me, as I'm not a Russian speaker. Many thanks, DionysosProteus 02:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, I deliberate left red links to this page in the articles about Russian Symbolism and Theodore Komisarjevsky, hoping that someone will start the page. I will take care of it today. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian barbarians
One fellow wikipedian and his friend (as usual) usually opposing to the use of the works of XIX-beginning of XX century Russian historians apparently changed his mind dramatically and started to insert phrases to the DYK article Warsaw pogrom (1881) from not so modern historical study containing such expressions as "Russian barbarians" "cultured Pole". Comments? M0RD00R 18:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Once MORDOOR pointed out the offensive part of the quote, I have removed it. It is hardly relevant to the rest of the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Culture during the Cold War
Hello...I've started an article on the topic listed above, but it suffers from a United States only perspective. I'd like to see some information from the Russian (and other, non-US) perspective(s). Can anyone help? Hires an editor 18:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Soviet historiography
There is a very heated discussion at Soviet historiography, regarding whether the article is unbalanced or not. Input, and review from real historians would certainly help - so far we have only well meaning amateurs on both sides.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

collaboration of the history projects
Hi, I'm newly appointed coordinator of the WikiProject History. I was coordinator of the WikiProject Military History before. My scope is to improve the cooperation among the different history projects andf use the synergy of a common infrastructure to improve article quality. One idea would be to merge small project into a larger wikiproject history with a common infrastructure and the small projects continuing independently as task forces of this project. What are your suggestions? Greetings Wandalstouring 15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter I of Russia needs cleanup and cites
Peter I of Russia needs cleanup and additional cites. -- 201.53.4.206 21:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

3 Russia/USSR WikiProject tags on one article
Talk:Nikolai Yezhov: WP Russia, WP Russian History, WP Soviet Union. Ridiculous. You should be sharing a project banner and assigning articles to workgroups. See e.g. WPBiography. There's just too much overlap for 3 seperate projects with 3 seperate banners. --kingboyk (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bezhin Meadow
Hello, I found Bezhin Meadow a while back, and want to bring this article to FA status. I found it fascinating the more I read about it.

I have started to compile sources at User:Lawrence Cohen/work/Bezhin Meadow. If possible, would anyone here be able to help me drum up more and post them to my page there (feel free to edit it)? I'd be willing to do the bulk of the heavy lifting, if needed. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

200th anniversary of the Finnish War
The Finnish War started on February 21, 1808 and lasted for about a year, leading up to the establishment of the Grand Duchy of Finland. The 200th anniversary of these events are likely to be covered by media in the coming year, and this is a great chance for us to shape up the related Wikipedia articles in English as well as in Finnish, Swedish, and Russian. I suggest that we start an international mini WikiProject on the talk:Finnish War page, as this is in the intersection between WikiProject Finland, Russian history, and Military history. --LA2 (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Conquest needs cleanup
Robert Conquest needs cleanup for neutrality and weasel problems. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian Insurgent Army
There is a very heated discussion at Ukrainian Insurgent Army, regarding whether the article is unbalanced or not. Input, and review from real historians would certainly help. Bobanni (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Russia and the USSR
There is a dispute regarding the exact nature of the succession or continuation of the USSR to the Russian Federation (current modern Russia). Some outside voices from those familiar with the subject would be greatly appreciated. The on-going discussion can be found at: Talk:Russia. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)
Two Russian naming convention topics have been brought up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), viz. a proposal for Russian Grand Duchesses and a request for input on the formulation of conventions for Rus princes. These things always benefit from as much participation as possible. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article candidate - Bezhin Meadow
Hello, please take a look at Featured article candidates/Bezhin Meadow, for Bezhin Meadow, a 1937 Soviet film. Any assistance you can offer to help finish the article off, or with suggestions for the FAC, would be appreciated. Thanks! Lawrence §  t / e  16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 647 of the articles assigned to this project, or 23.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-06-18.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Alexei Khvostenko
This is a newly created article and I am requesting its initial assessment. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

GA under review
Hello there, the article 122 mm howitzer M1938 (M-30) which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for input on Caucasia
(I didn't say "request for comment" because that's a standard term at Wikipedia for a procedure for resolving article disputes.)

Wow, this project is inactive: I am the first new edit in three months. The "Caucasia" (why not Caucasus?) Project has also been inactive. I just today tried to restart it. Since this project had more participation than that one ever did, I am submitting my questions here for now.

Lately, I have edited two articles on Caucasian history, Russian-Circassian_War and Muhajir_(Caucasus). The first in particular I have massively revised (in the US English sense of 'revise'). Both these articles have big flaws in conception, namely, in their thematic coherency and also as to how they would be integrated into a systematic outline of Russian history. Both articles aim to shed light on the slaughter and expulsion of the indigenous population, at least half a million people, of the northwest Caucasus in the 1860s, and especially upon the end of the war in 1864. I think there is a strong need for this information. But Russian-Circassian_War was full of bad history at all levels of description (from detail to big picture). In my opinion, most of its flaws, aside from the factual errors at the level of detail, arise from the article itself having arisen from a Circassian nationalistic agenda. This, in my opinion, is why its focus veers between the expulsion, the general history of Circassia, and the history of neighboring parts of the Caucasus, and why the historically dubious concept of "Russian-Circassian War" was thought up -- and of course, proper English is "Russo-Circassian War". In my opinion, the intended theme of this article was really the Russian conquest of Circassia. But this conquest was not a single war. Besides, I have discovered that historians in general do not recognize an entity called the "Russo-Circassian War". That in itself is a big piece of evidence as to the intent of creating the article. Perhaps somebody thought it would be simpler and more vivid to bring up a single war than a historical process.

The following certainly occurred: Russian conquest of the Caucasus; Russian conquest of Circassia in particular; brutal Russian pacification of Circassia involving mass expulsion. My question is how to apportion discussions among articles. After massively editing and reresearching Russian-Circassian_War, I am convinced it needs to be rewritten according to a theme that is clear and is in keeping with at least what some historians recognize. I would like to make it about the Russian conquest of Circassia. But we also need articles about the Russian conquest of the rest of the Caucasus. I am fortunate to have access to nearly all the best and latest books in English from the last 15 years or so on Caucasian history.

Thanks for your help. Hurmata (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-Assessment of the Cold War article?
Hello...the Cold War article is up for FAC, but there is a critique that the article under the Russian History WikiProject is still showing this article as a B rating, rather than A or GA. I'd like to ask that this article be reassessed, but can't find a link to ask for an assessment. Can anyone point me in the right direction, or make the request? Thanks! Hires an editor (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Russian history
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for overhaul and creation of a single WP:RUSSIA project
Going thru tonnes of Russian articles, I was actually very surprised to find 3 articles that one would probably expect to be featured articles are not; those being Russia, Moscow and Russian language. I was also surprised to find that many articles I expected to exist do not; prime example being many of the Federal government ministries. Then there are other problems such as:


 * Naming conventions - very little continuity and no real guidelines for Russian names and articles in wikipedia as a whole - an example is here.
 * Categorisation - naming conventions will help somewhat - following other naming conventions will help too - an example of poor categorisation throughout Russian articles - Category:Russian_people
 * Article assessment - there are no guidelines for this, and it has resulted in some unusual results. Guidelines are needed.
 * Article review - there are no guidelines specific to Russian articles and with more than one project, other projects won't necessarily know of review requests. Additionally, because of the number of projects with very little scope in each, wider community views can be missed. For example, Russian language was a featured article until 23 August 2007. It's featured article review, unfortunately it went unannounced on all Russian projects, apart from this corner
 * Collaboration - there is none to very little collaboration on Russian content between the various projects and unfortunately article quality, and perhaps stability, will suffer for it.
 * Recruitment/outreach - As we are members of various Russian projects, we took the time to add our name to a list, because we have an interest in a certain (or all) aspect/s of Russia. New members are needed, but how will they find the projects? There needs to be co-ordination to 'recruit' new members; particularly from ru:wiki.
 * Scope - just what is the scope for the various projects? WikiProject Russian federal subjects has a very narrow yet defined scope; WikiProject Russian history has a hazy 'historical' scope; a question being raised here.

What I am suggesting is the following projects be merged into WikiProject_Russia and for it to be co-ordinated much like any other all-encompassing project. The projects I am suggest to be merged are:


 * WikiProject_Russia - main project
 * WikiProject Russian federal subjects
 * WikiProject Russian history
 * Portal:Russia

Other projects which can be used as guides on how to structure the project could be:


 * WikiProject Australia
 * Portal:Australia - a featured portal

By merging all projects into a single project, we can then create "work groups" for specific Russian topics, such as:


 * History
 * Politics
 * Places (geography)
 * Culture (language, music, literature, film, etc)
 * Biographical
 * Society
 * Transport
 * Economy
 * etc

Perhaps others have other ideas.

Of course there needs to be concensus from all projects for a merge and structures be discussed, etc, but firstly, there needs to be discussion on the pros and cons of such an idea. I have posted this on the other project talk pages, and have asked that all discussion take place here so that all projects can read off the same page. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I also think this a good idea--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 22:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This idea would certainly make it easier to edit and organise Russia related articles. Those wishing to work on specific topics may find it ideal to have these topics as subdivisions under the Russia project, as all Russia related articles would be constituent of a single entity, rather than being of seperate Russia projects. This, I imagine, would establish a more efficient system of editing and organisation. Yggur (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Though I am not a regular contributor, I have watched the Russian history pages over the last couple of years (contributing some) and believe this to be a most sensible plan. Peshkov (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Move/rename Russian Alaska -> Russian America
Please see move/rename discussion at Talk:Russian Alaska.Skookum1 (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian ships in Pacific Northwest
Please be advised that Russian ships from the fur trade era and after are part of List of ships in British Columbia; we don't know much about a lot of them other than mentions; if someone here specializes in Russian naval history please go over the list and start any articles/titles that interest you....thanks.Skookum1 (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Redoubt San Dionysio"
This was the name of the fort that was transferred/leased to the British by the agreement of 1839 mentioned in the previous section; it also turns up as Fort San Dionysio or maybe Fort San Dionysius. "Redoubt" is obviously French in origin but is that word also a Russian word, or rather a French loan-word in Russian, for "fort" or "bastion"? I want to get it correct - and whether the Russian form is Dionisio or Dionysius or what - for the article (which may be separate or part of Fort Stikine) and include the Russian/Cyrliic spelling. Anyone here who has read any Russian histories or historical materials on Alaska recognize the name?Skookum1 (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Old Bolsheviks
Category:Old Bolsheviks has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Anglo-Russian" or "Russo-British"
I'm about to stub up the Convention of 1839, the Stikine dispute settlement and Alaska Panhandle lease by the HBC, and I'm uncertain as to whether there's a convention on British-Russian combination/hyphenized form; I tend to go with Russo-British but I've seen Anglo-Russian also; is there a preference? I've sween the Adams-Onis Treaty as the "Russo-American Treaty" also....
 * No answer, so I'm going to go with "Anglo-Russian" which is used in most sources I've seen so far.Skookum1 (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Governors of Russian America, bios needed
There is a listing of Governors of the Russian-American Company on the company page, with half a dozen or so in need of bio articles; my intention is to write more of a paragraph on the governors and migrate the list to its own list-page, and also to create a Category:Governors of Russian America category, but it would help to have the missing bios made, if someone here would care to indulge; also some of the existing articles, like Furuhjelm's, need references; even Russian-language ones would do. Thanks.Skookum1 (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New Category:Russian America categories
Hi; please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Alaska, though perhaps I should copy over that set of propossd categories here so as to not clutter up the WPAlaska talkpage/ or on Talk:Russian America maybe. Looking for feedback/ideas...Skookum1 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New article: List of Soviet tank factories
List of Soviet tank factories. —Michael Z. 2007-02-06 07:59 Z 

Pages needing the most work
I thought that we should make a list of pages that need more work than others. What does anyone else think? Eurohistbuff 16:04, 8 March 2007

Categories
The existing categories used to tag Russian history content are a bit of a mess. I (MP) suggest we begin our work by simply collecting what's out there in Wikispace and tagging it with the "History of Russia" category. See task one below. That will give us a good impression of what sorts of category hierarchies (temporal, geographic, national) are currently being employed. Once we are done with that, we can rationalize existing categories, e.g.,


 * 1) History of the East Slavs
 * 2) History of Russia
 * 3) East Slavic Migrations to Rus'
 * 4) (etc.)
 * 5) Kievan Rus'
 * 6) Foundation of Rus'

History of the Soviet Union
Yikes! What the heck happened to History of the Soviet Union? Wikipedia does not have such a thing as "a single article consisting of four pages". I have eliminated the misleading and broken fake TOC on that article. I strongly suggest that someone move this one to History of the Soviet Union up to 1927 and rebuild an actual summary article about the entire history of the Soviet Union (covering at least the years 1922 to 1981). —Michael Z. 2007-07-21 19:16 Z 

Who was Governor General Hershelman?
I need some help digging up information about a "General Hershelman". Here's what I know so far: He seems to have been active in the Russo-Japanese War. In 1908 he was a Governor General of Moscow. In 1909 he was the "military commander of Vilna". He was famous for persecuting Jews and political dissidents (but who wasn't?). In 1909, a Russian Jewish anarchist named Moishe Tokar tried to assassinate him. That's all I can find—no first name, no dates of birth or death, etc. If anyone can find any useful information about this person, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the guy, but could I suggest that you try the German form of the name, i.e. Herschelmann? Or even Gerschelmann, given the G/H switch common in Russianized names?Skookum1 (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't find "Herschelmann", but I did find "Hirschelman", see Evan Hirschelman. Funny thing, in both cases it looks quite a bit like a Jewish name....or maybe I'm just thinking of the stereotypical personal name Herschel/Hirschel...??Skookum1 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That helps. I found this in Why Europe Leaves Home: "General Herschelmann, who was governor general of Moscow and later commander of the army in the Vilna district...". Still haven't found any other information about him though. If I could just find a first name, I would be satisfied :P Kaldari (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it: Sergei Konstantinovich Gershelman (Сергей Константинович Гершельман). Thanks for the help! Kaldari (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you come across a first name for a Lieutenant Pereleshin, apparently a naval lieutenant, posted to Sitka in the 1860s, let me know :-) (see Talk:Pavel Pereleshin.Skookum1 (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:27, 28 February 2009 (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) 22:48, 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 WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)