Talk:Chronology of warfare between the Romans and Germanic peoples

Military history: European / German / Roman & Byzantine / Classical CL‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

CL

This article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

also removed http://www.royalandnoble.com/History/Ancient%20History/germanromanwars.html and http://www.ku.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures/germanic_invasions.html from references as they are dead now Dipa1965 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BC/AD versus BCE/CE

This article began with most commonly used dating system BC/AD. It continued to be only dating system for more or less 5 years without any problems whatsoever until [1]. From then the article used both systems, which is unseemly and clearly goes WP:ERA which clearly states that "Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but be consistent within the same article" and also "Do not arbitrarily change from one style to the other on any given article". Noticing that this article used both system I checked its history first and then restored its original dating system. User:Jayjg somehow believes that this change was against WP:ERA and has de facto imposed the BCE/CE system upon this article (you went far beyond an restoration of the mixed article: compare the present form with the previous one [2]). So let's debate these facts. Flamarande (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been using the mixed notation for over a year, which I agree is not a good idea. After your fairly arbitrary decision to change it all to BC notation, I changed it to the other, to point out that one could harmonize either way, and so that we could compare the two options. The fact that it first used BC is a point in converting to that notation, but not the only deciding factor; WP:ERA nowhere states that the earliest use is the one an article must follow forever after. Which notation was used the most before you converted it to BC notation? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's history clearly indicates that BC/AD has been used for longer amounts of time. 5 years of sole use followed by a single year of shared use. Flamarande (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less true (it has been over a year). During the period of "shared use", which notation was used more frequently or commonly? Also, is there something inherent to the topic that would indicate a preference for one use over another? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During the 'shared time period' BCE appeared more often. The topic is a list historical battles which happened 'before' and 'after'. Therefore it needs a dating system and BC/AD, which is after all the most popular one as far as the English language is concerned, should be preferred over BCE/CE which is unknown in many parts of the world (eg: Europe). Flamarande (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General arguments about whether BC/AD or BCE/CE are "better" not relevant here, since Wikipedia has determined that either is acceptable. Is there something inherent to the topic "Germanic Wars" that would indicate a preference for one use over another? For example, (though I'm not making this argument), one could make the argument that inherently Jewish topics should not use BC/AD, while inherently Christian ones should. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO, I challenge that particular reasoning. Jewish topics, Christian topics, Islamic topics, etc we are NOT going to balkanize the English wiki along religious lines. Who is going to define what is a Christian topic? Who is going to define what is a Jewish topic? What is a topic that is neither? I consider BC/AD in the same light as Thursday or bless you. It certainly has religious origins but that historical fact is simply irrelevant. Why should we censor the English language? Flamarande (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I pointed out that one might make that argument, though I wasn't making it myself. You don't have to make it either. However, you do have to provide some sort of rationale for what you are trying to do, and it has to be specifically relevant to this article. And, quite frankly, nothing is being "censored" anywhere on Wikipedia (or elsewhere). People are free to use whatever era notation they prefer, and the fact that you are so invested in this issue that you consider use of BCE/CE notation to be "censorship" is troubling. I think you need to take a step back here, and re-evaluate what you are doing and why. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Germanic Wars began with BC/AD. The BCE/CE was apparently introduced by a simple accident. Two dating systems are neither needed, nor wished for, and against WP:ERA. The overwhelming majority of the related articles and battles use BC/AD (I only found two exceptions: Germanic peoples (which uses both) and Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (which uses BCE/CE) - but there might be more). This article never used BCE/CE only and there is clearly no consensus for such a change. IMHO all these facts are relevant for this article and I'm hereby insisting that the original BC/AD be restored without further delay. Thank you very much. Flamarande (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are relevant for this article, but I made my offer clear on your talk page. You need to step back from your war on BC/AD notation, starting here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internal contradiction

This article has gone through some recent expansion to include material which appears to be outside the scope previously denoted, in terms of the time period and in terms that some of the conflicts now listed have no Roman involvement. It is not a subject I know much about but to my eye at the very least there seems to be some internal contradiction. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this so that you better understand the context of some battles and the reason why that happened. I'm thinking about an extra site for Chronology of Germanic Wars right now. Prophet of Hell (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Context comes from prose setting out why items are related, not by just listing them. I could put the Siege of Port Arthur into the a list of the chronology of the Pacific War but of itself it means nothing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means nothing to you because you have no clue about ancient history like I have no clue about the Pacific war. I used Archimedes as a historical anchor so that historians know where we are in history. Prophet of Hell (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have just made my point for me. A classical historian would know where we are in history, a reader with some idea of history might have some idea of when the classicial period starts, most readers know Archimedes went to have a bath one day but forget to take his towel. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why I'm talking to you? Prophet of Hell (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

The lead clearly qualifies the the scope of the article as Germanic tribes versus Romans. The Romans left Britain in the fourth century. Hence, later battles do not qualify. As far as I see, the wars of Germanic tribes against Eastern Rome in Italy are at least a borderline case. -- Zz (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Germanic Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I don't know why this article need to rename to "Dogil jeonjaeng", can someone tell me why? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: dogileun germaneul tteuthago, jeonjaengeun wareul tteuthapnida. --Kypioys sx (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

idonge gwanhayeo

@Hrodvarsson: dogileun germaneul tteuthago, jeonjaengeun wareul tteuthapnida.