User talk:Domino theory

Welcome!

Hello, Domino theory, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a fist 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Domino theory 22:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOC Country Studies

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies! Thanks for joining. I started the project because I think the Country Studies have a great deal of potential to improve Wikipedia's coverage of various topics if they're used systematically. If you have any questions, suggestions, or ideas please let me know. Thanks again for joining.--Bkwillwm 18:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Country Studies is indeed a great resource and it should be used. I did some work on templates and categorization, but I think more could be done. I've seen some more advanced templates and it seems like it would be possible to implement additional features, like built in external references and dates when the source was consulted, but i'm not really sure how to do that yet. I'm still fairly new here. -- Domino theory 10:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divided regions

Hello Domino! Great initiative of yours to create the divided regions category. I have taken the liberty of altering the wording in its description slightly, e.g. by removing all the types of subnational entities mentioned. I hope this is allright by you? Also, I think that the category might need mention of transborder Euroregions/InterReg's, such as the Northern Dimension. What do you think? //Big Adamsky 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the rephrasing and it's great. I considered a few different options before starting out, but the initial idea I had was that the category would consist of current administrative entities only, and of course Limburg in Belgium and the Netherlands was a perfect example of this. Pretty soon I realised that this would be more complicated than I had envisioned, because my original idea also depended on that the articles relating to a one particular region used more or less the same naming convention (ie the same language). This broke down already at Silesia where the different entities have articles with English, Polish, German and I believe also Czech names respectively. This means that a number of articles has been left out, simply because they won't fit the mold. This is sad but adding them would make it difficult to spot their unique names that serves to connect them to each other.

To solve some of these problems I also allowed historical entities to be added alongside of contemporary, even though this obviously makes the comparison less transparent. In the case of the island of Saint Martin, only one article seems to exist and that opened the door for a number of historical regions which may not even have current names that connect them. I think the concept is quite interesting and I'm somewhat surprised that it hasn't already been done, but at the same time I'm not entirely pleased with the outcome. Maybe the articles and their naming needs to be changed, but I'm a little hesitant to do that on the grounds of just this category. Maybe the category itself should be broken up into smaller pieces, or maybe a combination of both. Additional or expanded categories could also satisfy other aspects of regions that are presently divided, but not subject for inclusion here. -- Domino theory 21:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea for a category. I posted a comment on Category talk:Divided_regions which may (or may not) spark some good conversation.

Anyway, another question here ... I got to the category from the United States Virgin Islands and British Virgin Islands pages. I don't think they belong in this category for a variety of reasons (which I'll elaborate only if you're interested), but I'd like to know why you think they do. --Gruepig 08:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a comment at Category talk:Divided_regions, and I think points 9 or 10 comes close to your question here. It is rather the issue of principles than whether a single entity should be included or not that is interesting, but examples are fun too. Feel free to elaborate. -- Domino theory 19:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights Templar

Hiya, please be aware that there have been some elaborate consensus-building discussions about how to direct or redirect the term "Knights Templar". You are welcome to participate in the discussions (see Talk:Knights Templar (military order)), but please do not move pages around unless you are sure that there is consensus. Thanks. --Elonka 19:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without being aware of any discussion I found the structure with a disambiguation page at "Templar (disambiguation)" and one page of ambigous indeterminate value, if any, at "Knights Templar" mildly confusing. From what I've seen of Wikipedia so far this is not as uncommon as it should be. My two cents would be that the "Knights Templar (military order)" belongs at "Knights Templar" similar to the "Knights Hospitaller", and if needed a disambiguation page can be kept. -- Domino theory 19:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United fronts

Hello, your Category:United fronts is highly inaccurate. Most of the groups you list are not united fronts, but rather popular fronts. A united front is a very precise Marxist tactic, while the popular front is much more fluid. --metzerly 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I can see that you made some of the necessary changes, but defunct categories should be listed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion not be redirected. Will you take care of it? -- Domino theory 09:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that. I wasn't sure how to delete a category. --metzerly 23:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saluzzo

Hi! I noticed that you deleted the category "Former states of Europe" from Saluzzo article. I switched it back, and I explain why: as not separate entry exist at present for Marquisate of Saluzzo, I consider the category referring to the History section. Let me know your opinion. Ciao!!! Attilios

Hello! I think the information as such is valuable and should be retained, however my opinion is that the category "Former states of Europe" is not the right forum since it tends to confuse the delimitation between a current municipal entity and a historical status of the territory as a sovereign state.It is not in itself sufficient that the former polity is mentioned in the text if the article as such refers to a different entity. However since there are several Italian historical polities, which are currently only represented by articles for cities or current subnational entities an intermediate sollution could be to create a category like "Historical city-states in Italy" or similar, which could then be listed as a subcategory to "Former states of Europe". -- Domino theory 18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Governorate

Hi there! I noticed your interest in Russian Governorates articles. Would you be willing to take over this project? If you speak Russian, I can send you all the materials I have. Thanks and keep up the good work!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the offer, but I do not speak Russian. However, I would still consider working on these articles from time to time, and there still seems to be room for improvements on the existing material. Its good to know that I can put the question to you if I have some considerations, and please give me your input when ever you feel its appropriate. -- Domino theory 11:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will do. Thanks for your interest in this topic!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia

I've been surprised for your edition renaming this article, created in 2002. In your user page, you describes yourself as a recent editor. I assume that this is the reason for making such a change without a previous discussion. Your opinions are welcome in the discussion pages, and in [[1]]. Best regards from Barcelona, --Joan sense nick 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the edit history of the article you will discover that the article was moved by User:Djln on April 5. What I did was to create a redirect to restore the functionality, which was disrupted by Djln's effort to turn "Catalonia" into a disambiguation page. I presume an experienced editor would have discovered this. Best regards -- Domino theory 08:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize to you if you felt my words inappropriated: as you can see, my english is not very good. It was not my intention to villainize anybody!. I have not seen (it wasn't that easy) the full edit history of the article. I appreciate your effort in solve this little muddle. --Joan sense nick 22:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor and Sud Peruvian Republics

I would rather you reversed the articles to their original format for several reasons: a) the use of Sud or Nor instead of the most common North or South is in line with their "real" or "official" names, in fact in the official document of creation of these republics they were not named North Peru (Peru del Norte) o South Peru (Peru del Sur) but Nor-Peruvian (Norperuana, an adjective in itself) and Sud-Peruvian (Sudperuana, also an adjective). As you will notice, the adjectives used in the original names are just ONE word, implying thus the adjectivization of the word. That is what I have been trying to preserve. b) Also it is proper to differentiate the name of the country from the name of the geographical area they occuppy. North Peru is definitely a geographical area and still exists as such (i.e. Trujillo is in North Peru.) Nor-Peru on the other handd is more of a "name" for the Republic. Some of the other changes are minor, but also in the case of the names used you eliminated the minor variations used only in a few documents, that would be useful to keep if only as a reference. Mel Romero 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you simply because the names should either be in original form or in English. Do you have any sources supporting that for the names that you have proviced? Cheers! -- Domino theory 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former country subdivisions

Category:Former country subdivisions and Category:Subdivisions of historic countries - great that you did the sorting of the subcats and the pages. You are my WP-Hero of the day. :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :), but as always the workload is staggering in organizing the categories... --Domino theory 09:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economic history of the Holy See

Thanks for being bold and moving this category. I didn't know that there was a Category:Economic history by country category when I created it. I'm also glad that you didn't move it to "Economic history of the Vatican," because although the Vatican is the name of the country, the scope of this category is meant to be inclusive of the entire history of the papacy, rather than just the (relatively recent) period in which it has been recognized as a country. Cheers, savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Economic history of the Holy See" strikes a pretty good balance in that "economic" is a slightly wider term than "financial", and that it makes it possible to categorize it with other "countries". I agree, it wouldn't have made much sense to separate the Vatican City from the Papacy, I felt it was better to let the Holy See encompass all these aspects. Cheers -- Domino theory 16:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former countries

Hi. I see you've removed "Category:former countries" from articles like Republic of Texas with the comment "Clean-up categories". As the category seems relevent, your reasons for doing this seem unclear and the explanation inadiquate. If you plan to put those articles into a different category or subcategory instead, it might be better to add the new category at the same time as removing the old one. If you think the category is inappropriate for the article it is on, please give an explanation. Thank you, -- Infrogmation 18:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that you meant to move it to "Former countries in North America". Am I correct? I have changed the category on that one thusly. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already did that in June [2], and in fact it is still in there. The clean-up was about removing the superfluous [[Category:Former countries]] and I'm sorry if it was not clear enough... Maybe it's best to remove the duplicate "Former countries in North America" that you added. Cheers, -- Domino theory 19:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Infobox Former Country additions...

...and for the Yemen (disambiguation) page. The arrows and flags for prior and successor states on the template are geil. — AjaxSmack 03:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new features are quite neat, and it works amazingly well! However some features to be implemented, like automatic file name resoultion and verification for plausible images, had to be exluded or limited since it didn't work properly with the current version of MediaWiki. I must have sifted through the dozen or so articles relating to Yemen as historical political entities, when I realized that some kind of structured view was needed. Cheers. -- Domino theory 08:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Independent State of Croatia and State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs

I've done some reverts, please don't be mad :-) empire = Germany is not quite correct as half of NDH was Italy's sphere of influence. Therefore I removed it. I reckon that Invasion of Yugoslavia is much more informative than just "Invasion". And, yes, common name... now, Independent State of Croatia was rarely called Croatia. Local common name was NDH, which is abbreviation for local name of the state, but just Croatia was never used... --Dijxtra 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. And, I did some reverts on State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Most of it was historical accuracy. For instance, kingdom was named Kingdom of Yugoslavia only after 11 years. Then, the State didn't have president or Vice presidents, it didn't manage to form those posts before it entered the Kingdom. So it is far more accurate to put President of National Council... --Dijxtra 22:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that the variables in the infobox are there for functional purposes, not informational. Consider the presentation of the content in the infobox as it is displayed, not the names of the variables as such.

My edits are directed to resolve existing problems related to not applying the template properly. I was not hoping to immediately have the same problems ambitiously recreated. Thanks to your effort the articles has been returned to a state where they can't be categorized or sorted properly. Please take a while to study the Template talk:Infobox Former Country#Usage. Do you want to restore the clean-ups yourself, or will you allow me? -- Domino theory 22:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your lack of good faith disturbing. I approached you in a more than civil manner and apologised in advance for any trouble and/or irritation this reverts of mine might create for you. I will now try to find a more civil editor to talk to so he can explain to me your problems with my edits, but will in the mean time also revert those of your changes which I find wrong. If you wish to contact me about those, make sure you explain to me why precisely does each and every variable you revert back has to have the value you set, and make sure you do that in a civil manner and in a good faith. Thank you very much for your cooperation. --Dijxtra 14:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry if you feel that I came off as uncivil to you, but I'm willing to go through this again and try to explain why there is a problem. Speaking of good faith, it is perhaps something that could be extended rather than unilaterally expected.

I think you may also be put off by believing that this is a form of argument, but maybe I have to spell it out that I'm not trying to argue with you. I am purposely not opposing the information that you are trying to add. What I am trying to say is that the way that you have entered information does not work. I will try to summize this in a few of simple points. Please ask any if there is something you would like to have explained further.

Changing the "common_name" variable for "Independent State of Croatia" from "Croatia" to "Independent State of Croatia" means that the article will no longer be sorted among countries starting with the letter "C" like "Canada", but rather under the letter "I" like "Indonesia". The variable name "common_name" is not refering to what may or may not have once been seen as the "common name" of the state, but is a control variable for the template to work properly.

Well, Independent State of Croatia goes under the letter "I" like "Indonesia" just like United States of America goes under "U" and not under "A".

The "government_type" variable is designed to classify the state entity according to how it was governed and put it in the appropriate category. This done for a number of recognized government types like "Monarchy" or "Constitutional monarchy", but if one were to put something else like within brackets or more than one classification this functionality does not work and the article is not put in any category, which also makes it harder for a reader to find.

So it be. Because, puting Kingodm of Yugoslavia under Constitutional Monarchy is not correct because it was pure dictatorship from 1929 to 1931. Better to have it in no category rather to have it in just one category. If you do not agree with me, feel free to raise the issue on the article talk page.

Smiliarly variables like "status", "era" and others also help to classify the article and put it into categories, which makes the article easier for readers to find.

So, why is "End of World War I" wrong for an era? As for status, I didn't touch status of the countries in my last series of reverts.

When entering or changing the values of the variables in the infobox, it is not enough to consider merely what information is entered, but also that functionality is preserved.

I consulted available documentation for the template every time when I did the change in it and except for largest_city (which I returned to the template by error) I always obeyed the available documentation.

The reason why we are having this discussion highlights the fact that there should be a better guide on how to use the template, and an introductory guide like that is in the works. However the template is not fully developed and does not make use of all variables just yet, nor is it ready for full deployment. Since this is the case the instances where the template has been implemented needs to brought up to standards in order to gather experiences and to complete that work. This does not discount for the fact that who ever decides to implement the template also needs to spend at least some thought on finding out how the template actually works, and be willing to accept that there is such a thing as functionality. -- Domino theory 19:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So, the thing is that not all features and requirements of the template are documented. Well, why don't you say so? I know that it is easier to just revert my changes instead of telling me what I did wrong, but if there is no documentation and the template doesn't say it is an experimental one, then who should I know how to use it? Do you see a "do not use this template, it is still in development" notice on the template? Do you see a notice "documentation about this template is full of holes, prepare for reverts if you use it"? I don't. And, in cases like that you are supposed to approach the editor who used the template and explain to him what went wrong, not just tell him that he is recreating problems. The problems which I recreate because you didn't write proper documentation are not my error, but yours. Acting accordingly would be a nice gesture.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not spitting on your work. I'm just saying that you need a bit of a shift in your approach to people who didn't participate in development of this template. I don't know how to use it. I don't have a documentation to learn how to use it. I don't see a notice saying I shouldn't give it a shot and use the template. Just being polite and pointing out what I did wrong, point by point, would be really nice. Because, you have to do that sooner or later to make a decent documentation. --Dijxtra 21:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are telling me is that you have in fact studied the documentation available from the template page, but still revert and repeatedly revert edits to illustrate a point? The other option would be that despite the fact that there are documentation available on how categories are generated by the template you have simply not bothered to study it. Complaining about documentation, but still not bothering to read it... These are not examples of bringing a productive attitude to Wikipedia. -- Domino theory 22:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see that both of us have come forward pretty much at once. Most of what i've said on my talk page is also said here. Yes, the main problem is that the template is still in development and there is still not enough documentation. Most new developments come from our attempts to implement the infobox everwhere and confronting new problems, and, like just about any form of programming, the documentation always lags behind the code. We really want to see this template in use and we're very happy to see other people help us in doing this. Actually, it's in situations like this where someone has the guts to speak out and demand to know what the problem is where we figure out just what documentation is necessary. For that, we must thank you. - 52 Pickup 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I think this does illustrate the need of having a better guide for editors who wish to use tools that is being produced within the project. The infobox template is probably the prime example of this at the moment. I know that you have mentioned something about creating a quick guide, and I'm of course interested in helping to make this happen. Pointing fingers is not a solution for anything, what matters is what and how we can improve.

I also think we received some good suggestions, like how to inform editors who are using the template or come into contact with the project for the first time. One problem is that editors might not take the trouble of reading guides or adhering to guidelines, others might not even know basic navigation techniques or be able to find necessary information. To alleviate this we could create some form of information package that includes posting a boiler plate information text to their talk pages when they come in contact and start using project tools.

We should consider developing a form of style guide. While some variables require discipline to retain functionality there are also several flexible free text variables, and cramming too much information or too long wikilinks into these is not a very good idea either. -- Domino theory 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guide is not complete, but I guess now that it is probably better to put the incomplete part up rather than have nothing at all until it is completely written. I've just put up a completed section of the guide here. I have also put a warning on the template page. - 52 Pickup 11:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start, I will take a closer look at it. In the mean time I have set up a suggestion box to handle the process of adding new conditions and categories. The proposals that you added on talk page, and the links pointing there has been moved to the new suggestion box. -- Domino theory 21:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping!

Czechoslovakia

Hi, I notice you've just undertaken an extensive split of the Czechoslovakia article, but I seem to have missed the relevant discussion, could you kindly direct me to the link to the discussion for this split? Cheers! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hexagon1, thank you for your message. I have, as I believe that you have noticed, restructured the content that was previously located at "Czechoslovakia". I boldly did this because I felt that it was necessary to split the article into separate parts. By this split two important objectives are achieved, creating a better structure to describe the different political entities of Czechoslovakia, and making better over all use of the content at this Wikipedia relating to Czechoslovakia.

The basis for the content that was included on the Czechoslovakia page and on all its relevant sub pages comes from the Library of Congress Country Study on Czechoslovakia. (The bulk of the text was transferred, in itself a commendable effort, in the beginning of January 2004, but as it would seem it has not been supplied with any kinds of references to its source, either in 2004 or since, and it is questionable whether the basic conditions for even using this material has been fulfilled.)

The country study itself published in 1987 was not only contemporaneous with the communist regime in Czechoslovakia, but also occupied itself with studying the conditions of the country at that time. Disseminating the differences in the material and determining what part of the study it originates from carries the traits of being either simple or obvious. Using a plethora of different sections from the mainstay of the study mixed with selected parts from the study's history section did not produce a cohesive image on what Czechoslovakia represented as a country from 1918 to 1992. The country study refer to Czechoslovakia under communist rule, and the articles produced from that text should originate from and refer to Czechoslovakia when it was a socialist country. Now such an article exists.

I believe however that the article name "Czechoslovakia" deserves a better fate than merely serving as a redirect. I also think that there is a value to describe Czechoslovakia as a country for the period from 1918 to 1992, but that also has to take into account that the unions of the Czech and Slovak nations existed in the shape of several different polities and different conditions during its duration. I think one source of inspiration could be how the case of Yugoslavia has handled. In that event one might also question the value of having a historical account for Czechoslovakia and another separate account for the History of Czechoslovakia? Cheers, -- Domino theory 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have acted unilaterally on this, but since you did, that means a lot of work for us all regarding this. I suggest a disambiguation page or a redirect to History of Czechoslovakia for the Czechoslovakia page. That series also needs to be updated to go along with the de-merger, as the First Republic of Czechoslovakia and Republic of Czechoslovakia are essentially the same things, but the first article forms part of the History series whereas the second is a country-page. PS: All the images that you have derived from Image:LocationCzechoslovakia.png need to be licensed as public domain, as that is the licence the original blank world maps were licensed, and our modifications are not sufficient to claim copyright. PS2: In fact all maps derived from those original blank maps need to be licensed as such. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 23:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone Domino theory's move/split of Czechoslovakia, as any move that major should be done after a discussion on the article's talk page leads to a consensus that it is the correct course of action. Frankly, I find the idea of having a disambiguation page under a country's most recognized name to be improper and out of line with Wikipedia conventions; there should be a master article under Czechoslovakia, perhaps with breakout articles as needed from the history section. DT, your intentions may have been good, but in the future, please use talk pages before doing anything so drastic. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have been unable to attend to this discussion and other work at Wikipedia for some time, but I must say in retrospect that it was probably naive to believe that it would be possible to solve the major structural problems with the set of historical state articles relating to Czechoslovakia with a few simple changes in one go, and without being able to set aside the time to follow these changes through. Problems still persist with that set of articles, however it is not my intention to get particularly involved with the case of one single country. My perspective is that of the whole body of articles relating to former countries, and from this perspective there is not only structural problems with the case for Czechoslovakia but with a large segment of former country cases.

Regarding the over all structure for former country articles, including some of which has existed not as a single but in fact several states through its history, there is a lot of work to be done in order to present information in a way that is more adapted towards the needs of the reader, than to maintaining a habitual style developed by particular editors for a single country. This work goes on in WikiProject Former countries and anyone who wants to contriubute to this process should feel free to join in. Suggestions to redress these and other issues will be forthcoming from the project, other questions like the proper use of project infobox templates will also be coordinated. -- Domino theory 13:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GOV task force

Are you still interested in the WPFC GOV taskforce that you started up? I'm not sure what we can do with it. One problem is that we cannot really use this to cover current provisional/exiled governments because may readers will take issue to having such things covered by a former countries project. Perhaps such work could be better done as a separate project, free of the "former" connotations.

I was thinking of coming up with a special infobox for these cases, if you want to go ahead with it.

Also, did you see the changes that I made to the WPFC banner? I think the changes should help make it easier to assess articles and to eventually give some direction to the project. The banner now also accomodates the GOV taskforce (see Talk:Polish government in Exile). - 52 Pickup 16:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To get things rolling, I've made a couple of tweaks on the infobox for Belarusian National Republic to reflect the exile status. - 52 Pickup 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it a bit more, it makes sense to have exiled governments supported by WPFC and the former country infobox does the job nicely without major changes. I've made a few modifications to support exiled governments with this edit and have modified the BNP entry to reflect this. What do you think? - 52 Pickup 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The task force was meant to handle the aspect of provisional or exiled government to the extent that they could be considered former countries, and to this end I feel that it is appropriate. I can see that you have augmented the infobox to cover information relevant to these subjects and it does this nicely. There are some areas that can not be reconciled for both exiled governments and proper states and this may justify a separate infobox, but the extra time spent on maintenance for such an infobox also has to be taken into account depending on how many instances it can be used for.

On the whole I am in favour of streamlining usage of the infoboxes, such as adapting and having a smiliar layout to the infobox for extant countries. The infobox used the former soviet republics is very similar to the general infobox and I could see sollution where a special purpose infobox is no longer needed.

My presence has been somewhat sporadic lately, but it is nice to se the project progress and time permitting I aim to contribute to both project and articles. -- Domino theory 17:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian counties

Next time before you make such massive edits, like 30 within a short period of time you should pace out, or use some warning or discussion on the talk page before you change so much at the same time. Unfortunately you made a lot of mistakes (understandable at such a volume) for example using 1876 as a start date for several counties, completely ignoring any prior existence in the middle ages (also maybe you wanted to write 1867 ?, instead of 76). Also several counties existed well into the 1940s, with some of them reestablished in 1940 as Hungarian counties (example, Háromszék), and in the middle ages, so your playing with the name of the infobox (renaming it from the correct name KoH counties infobox to some silliness) is also weird. Hobartimus 03:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing the infobox upgrade in the Hungarian counties. The Historic Hungarian Counties project has been under the parentage of the forerunners of the WikiProject Former countries since its start in 2004, and looking back at the counties project there seems to have been little or no activity since 2005. One of the aims of WikiProject Former countries is to develop articles, increasing quality and accessibility to readers. In order to achieve that provisions are developed in the project for use in its subprojects and articles, thus to this end there is an infobox specially designated for former subdivisions. No one has been around to upgrade the counties to the new infobox and because of that it has taken more than year to implement it. The new infobox contains a host of new features and several of the basic ones are not even being utilized, either depending on the lack of information in the articles or on inactivity in the project. Thank you again for noticing any errors that might have crept in. -- Domino theory 11:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other word this is not in the scope of "Austria-Hungary subdivisions work group" as you like to call it, some of these Hungarian counties existed 8-900 years before your time frame of Austria-Hungary, and a lot existed after such time frame. Hobartimus 03:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In its infancy the Hungarian counties project was not only under the parentage of the main Former countries project, but also directly under the subproject for Austria Hungary. The old WikiProject Austria-Hungary focused on just that; Austria-Hungary 1867 to 1918. The rationale for the new Austria-Hungary task force is that it covers not only Austria and Hungary in their various incarnations and from their respective establishments, but all the component entities related to them up to the Interwar period. This means that prior to World War II and going back at least a millennia all related entities are covered by the task force. Since this is a broad perspective it also means that it has to be coordinated with the work being conducted elsewhere. In the case of Austria it means coordination with work being done on the Holy Roman Empire, and for Hungary it will mean coordination with work being done on the Ottoman Empire to take two examples.

The reason for the creation of the Austria-Hungary subdivisions work group was to separate work being done on the subdivisions from work being done on the various countries, and without any tentative limitations of the task force. It is also intended as a new home for the ailing Hungarian counties project by placing it inside larger frame work. The frame work provides it with tools and enables a level of coordination it would otherwise not have had access to.

Since you are interested I would encourage you to join WikiProject Former countries and participate in the work group. Welcome! -- Domino theory 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union between Sweden and Norway

Esteemed Domino theory, I am surprised at your censorship of my recent attempts to correct the article Union between Sweden and Norway. Basically, the template "Former countries" is misleading, since the union was one between two separate countries. Significant reminders of that duality is the union (and royal) coat of arms with two crowns above the escutcheon, symbolizing two kingdoms, not one; and the official name in both languages.

If the template is to be used at all, it must be modified accordingly with doubled information. Most of this is already taken care of. There were two capitals, two currencies, two constitutions, two national assemblies. (And in addition, two separate state churches, two separate legal systems, two separate armed forces, etc.) Consequently, two constitutional monarchies. To define them as one monarchy is inconsistent and misleading. I sincerely hope that you will allow these facts to be reflected in the article. By the way, the article needs a thorough revision, as proposed by several contributors. Roede (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Roede, I'm not sure whether you are aware that your edits have been placing the infobox in the article on a maintenance list for WikiProject Former countries. In order to resolve this a number of maintenance edits has been performed to make the infobox compliant with the template specifications, and thanks to your recent edit the problem still persists.

WikiProject Former countries deals not merely with singular countries or individual sovereign states, but all historic geopolitical entities. This also includes entities such as empires, federations, confederations and unions of various types that has as a distinguishing feature that it includes more than one country. Each of these component countries, even if they are not sovereign, can use the infobox to describe what is particular to it, but in order to use it there must first exist an article that describes it as an entity. The infobox of the empire, confederation, or what ever higher entity, should only describe institutions or features that it has in common, not try to list every variation or feature for each of the component entities.

The article in question is part of the History of Sweden-series, which ought to be about describing the historical period of the union in Sweden. Yet there is no corresponding article for Norway, nor about the union itself. The solution is not to keep adding information to the infobox, which was never intended to be there. The solution is to have a proper article about the union as an entity, where the infobox includes information common to the union. If you are concerned about the coverage of Norway there should be a separate article about it as an autonomous part of the union, and that infobox should contain information specific to Norway and its status within the union. Cheers, -- Domino theory 09:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cross-posted your comments to WT:3K

Hi Domino theory, I cross-posted your comments on my Talk to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms. Perhaps someone will be interested. Cheers! Ling.Nut 07:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm?

You removed some of the data. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is automatically placed on a maintenance list when it fails to meet to certain criteria, and the edit was made to satisfy that it complies to the style and specifications of the Infobox Forumer Country. -- Domino theory (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AustrianFlag

Hi, you undid my edits on the Austrian flas in numerous articles. The flag image I put in is the correct flag for the period - the one that replaced it is anachronistic and incorrect. Can you please revert?Tttom1 (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note: the flags of Prussian are correct for that time in the articles - the flag of modern Russia is incorrect because it is anachronistic and is not the flag used by the tsarist empire in the 19th century. Please do not revert without discussing in my talk or yours. ThanksTttom1 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were numerous edits where a working template call had been replaced by direct linking to an image. The function of the template is precisely to make that kind of edits unnecessary. Instead the underlying subtemplate where the name of the image is kept should be changed. The changes that you are now making will have to be rereverted by someone. Secondly; do you have a source that can substantiate the change you wish to make? -- Domino theory (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, edited flag is correct and the edits are fine - you shouldn't replace correct info with incorrect info to satisfy a template. If you want correct info in the article you should use it to change to the flag image, from commons, that I put in. Please note that while the flag you reverted to is an austrianflag it is anachronistic just as the modern russian flag used in many SYW and Nap. art is anachronistic. There's no need to wiki lawyer thisfor source - that's the flag, I assure you that the is no source that substantiates the flag I replaced as the flag of the Austrian Hapsburgs in the 18h and 19th century periods we're talking about. The logic of some of the flag ions is wrong because they are showing modern flags instead of the period appropriate flags. Please ask why the Prussian flag looks as it does? Why not use the modern german flag?Tttom1 (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found no sources supporting your claim. If you like to support your claim you have the opportunity to do so. Replacing a flag based on personal opinion has no foundation. -- Domino theory (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's tone this down some. The flag that was there has no attribution or sources so it can be replaced at any time as per wiki policy especially as in this case it is anachronistically incorrect. The point is to improve the articles not satisfy a template function. Many of the flags in the templates for these periods are anachronistically incorrect. The modern Russian flag is an obvious example, it needs to be replaced with the eagle of the Tsar. An example of correct usage is the royal Bourbon flag as the flag of france until the revolution after which it is replaced by the tricolor. For historical accuracy the Feur de Lis flag should be used for Seven Years War and the Tricolor for Napoleonic Wars.

Here's the commonly used flag for that period of warfare it is the flag the Archdukes and soldiers marched under, the Imperial Standard:

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ah-imper.html

as an infantry standard: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ah%5E.html

The other flag is this one: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ah.html#b1867

not widely used and possibly not used before 1848 when national flags began to generally replace monarchal flagsTttom1 (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From wikicommons, we have an image from a primary source, a painting from 1812 of the Archduke Charles at Aspern-Essing, as you can see he's holding the Imperial Colors.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Erzherzog-Karl.jpg Tttom1 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. If you are aware of these sourced flags why aren't you using any of them? -- Domino theory (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be puzzled about. I used the flag icon available from wiki commons that is temporally appropriate and a style match for the other correct flags being used in the articles. Those other sources above may not be images in the public domain. I believe some of the flags being used in the articles were taken from the main site I linked above - I don't know if that is allowed by that site. The double headed black eagle on a yellow field is the correct icon as there was no 'national' flag at that time because there was no 'nation' of austria-hungary, those places were the land possessions of the Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperor, remaining as such until Napoleon assumes the title of Holy Roman Emperor. Its the Napoleonic Wars that cause the idea of 'Nation' to supplant the idea of 'Sovereign'. What do you suggest we do about the use of today's flag for Russia which is a flag that only came into existence in the last 20 years and cannot therefore be the correct flag? The correct flag for the Imperial Russia army would be something like this one from wikicommons, altho this one is the flag only of a specific regiment. : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Izmailovsky_flag-14.jpg . While I personally like info boxes, a problem with them is that they tend sometimes to promulgate misinformation such as anachronistic flags. It would be obvious to all it was the wrong flag if we used the old 'Hammer and Sickle' of the Soviet Union, but at least one could say its closer in time to the correct flag for the SYW or Nap period.Tttom1 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't you presenting a source for the flag that you are promoting? -- Domino theory (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. The primary sourceis the painting of Charles holding that flag. If you mean the Russian flab, I just found this image on wiki commons for the Russian Imperial flag. It looks generally correct, somewhat mid to late19th century, to me, but is a photo of the actual flag and somewhat different in style than those already used in the articles:

.Tttom1 (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From wikicommons the austrian flag:

the reference for this is a primary source from 1812 AD, also from wikicommons:

. I don't think its necessary to footnote this as a reference in some 100+ articles unless all flag icons are so footnoted.Tttom1 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you presenting flags that are different than the one that you are promoting? -- Domino theory (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are minor variations of the Imperial Standard, the correct flag, they have variations depending on whether its for the emperor, archduke, regiment etc. But the basic flag is the 2 headed black eagle on the yellow field. I showed you primary source picture for the double-headed eagle. The flag previously used has no source - why are you defending it and I think we should begin deleting the incorrect modern Russian national color. Do you wish to do that on the template or shall I just do it article by article? Here's the icon used for the Prussian flag:

and here's the Austrian I added:

I believe they both came from the same artist Jaume Ollé and they are from the same web site: http://fotw.net/flags/de-pr701.html. You asked me for sources for the flag I used - you have them, I'm not presenting flags different from the flag I've used. I've given you historical sources for the artist's version of the historical flag used for the icon and the website where the artists versions are coming from website for that flag. Do you have historical 18th & 19th century references for the flag I removed? If not I think we can end this discussion with consensus and move onto remove the other anachronistically incorrect flag icons beginning with the one for Russia.Tttom1 (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite posting here in length, a dozen or more times, you not been able to verify your claim. Instead you have presented an external source that supports the flag that you have been trying to replace (FOTW: See National Flag.). Since you are unable to present a verifiable source that actually supports your claim your work would be identified as original research, and has no place in Wikipedia.
Coincidentally, the flag you have been promoting for the Austrian Empire bears a striking resemblance to the symbols used by another large political entity that was contemporaneous with it. (FOTW: German Confederation). If you knew what flags and banners were used by the Austrian Empire, why have you been using a flag that represented something else? -- Domino theory (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was reached here on another flag icon Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for 'Flag of the Austrian Empire'. Replacing unsourced material with sourced and discussed consensus material is not OR. Using incorrect unsourced icon images and reverting correct icon is preventing the improving of the articles involved. You are misrepresenting the process for improving articles. Incorrect and unsourced material may be removed at any time. However I provided you with numerous sources showing variations of the correct flag icon for that period, in Military History discussion a better icon for Austria was arrived at and is currently being used. What point are you trying to make by holding on to obviously anachronistioc and incorrect icons in the info boxes? It fairly plain that many of the flag icons used are incorrect for that period and need to be changed or removed as they are perpetuating misinformation and are unsourced as well. It also is fairly obvious that sourcing every flag icon in every article is unreasonable. The imperial standard of the Hapsburg Austro-Hungarian empire of that time is the flag depicted in the portrait of Charles painted in 1812, the icon we are using is a minor contemporary variant of that. The previous icon of yellow and black horizontal bar has no sourcing for the period involved because it is not the flag used and so is removed.Tttom1 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So after being told also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Flag of the Austrian Empire that you have the wrong flag you are now going back and changing it for the third time? -- Domino theory (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus process by which Wikipedia functions was used. And it was agreed in the discussion the new flag image would be more precise and the better representation icon for the period. My 1st edit was not 'wrong', the yellow and black bar flag previously was wrong and unsourced.Tttom1 (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that it was "not wrong" as in "I'm not able to present any sources that can support my claim, but please believe me anyway..."? It is precisely to refute contributions like this that there are Wikipedia policies on Verifiability and No original research.
Even if I am pleased to see that you are now instead supporting a different flag, one that was actually used by the Austrian Empire, I still wish we could have done without about the 250 or so pointless edits so far. However, I estimate that it will take a further 60-120 edits to get back to status quo before your edits, to implement changes that would have taken less than five edits to accomplish if it had been done correctly in the first place. It would be becoming if you did this yourself. -- Domino theory (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi there. Thanks for cleaning up the Former Country infobox even further and handling the recent ifexist issue. Lately I have had no time to take care of the template since Real Life has kept me very busy and I've been caught up on other wiki jobs with what little spare time I have. - 52 Pickup (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ifexist problem just had to be solved quickly, and I addressed that by using components that will be part of a major overhaul of the template. Maintenance is becoming increasingly difficult and the template has to be made a lot more flexible to enable further development. I had hoped to introduce this more completely in a few easy steps, but then the ifexist issue popped up. I'm trying to divide the time I'm able to spend on the project between development and maintenance, but as always time is the real constraint. Cheers, -- Domino theory (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could say the same. My question would be , from where exactly did you get the info for the infoboxes regarding Alempois, Nurmekund, Ugandi County, Läänemaa etc.? It seems like the infoboxes created by the troll and sockpuppet master User:Bloomfield who has been banned editing WP several times [3], [4], have been restored. Unfortunantely this makes cleaning up the nonsense the guy has been creating on WP more difficult. I'm going to readjust the infoboxes mentioned above as soon as I can find time to get into it. Meanwhile it would be a good idea to keep a critical eye on any former countries created or edited by any of the socks of this guy. There has been one complete hoax Principality_of_Estland and the rest of the articles the guy has had his hands on would need a lot of clean up. Please do not make it more difficult in the future. thanks!--Termer (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry in case I was too harsh about it at first. It has been tedious job tracking down all the nonsense the guys has been busy with adding to WP over time. Hope you understand. For now I just removed the most far out "info" from the infoboxes and I'm going to return to these articles later to adjust everything according to available published sources. The only major sources available for these ancient counties would be the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia and the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle.--Termer (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really do appriciate any efforts to stifle that kind of disruptive behaviour, and I can also appriciate that the task is not a trivial one. I'm thinking that there might be something that can be done from the project to highlight articles that can be perceived as being dubious in nature. There is a category for articles in need of expert attention, but which could also be used to highlight these problems. If need be a separate category could be set up.

Apart from this there is also a category for more straight forward maintenance issues, mainly concerning the infobox. -- Domino theory (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkhanate, etc.

Thanks for cleaning up my code when I left far too many extra parameters in my former country box. gren グレン 07:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that it helped. Additional parameters can always be added if and when they are needed. -- Domino theory (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Condominiums

I can live with "special territory." That solves the problem, but I do have one other concern: what should be done if a territory has two flags instead of one (but also no coat of arms)? This was the case in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and in the New Hebrides. Btn551 (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically I guess it would have been representatives of the states, sharing sovereignty of their respective citizens with in the jointly designated territory, that carried flags and not the territory itself. This means that there could be separate articles with separate infoboxes for each authority, but I'm not sure that this would make much sense. The best solution could be to simply present the flags outside the infobox, but I think you should also take a look at the ad hoc solution applied in Brandenburg-Prussia. -- Domino theory (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That will work perfectly. Thanks for helping me. I appriciate it. Btn551 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Thanks for creating the Electorate of Hanover article. Olessi (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been needed for some time, and hopefully it will make it easier to uphold the distinction between the different Hanoverian states. Anyway, thank you for noticing. :) Cheers, -- Domino theory (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Ceylon

Hello! There is a discussion going on at Talk:Portuguese Ceylon that may interest you. Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for notifying me, and thank you for carrying the flag in the discussion. Cheers, -- Domino theory (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo (UNMIK)

I'm trying to achieve consensus within this article to have it merged. Since you participated in the AfD discussion, the consensus of which is disputed, I wondered if you would like to comment on the new discussion I am holding on the article's talk page. I am contacting all editors who participated in the AfD regardless of their vote in the interest of fairness. - Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me, I will look into it. -- Domino theory (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of the Holy Roman Empire.png

I'm afraid that no CSD criterion is applicable to this deletion concern, so I have removed the speedy tag. You'll have to open an IfD debate. Happy‑melon 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. -- Domino theory (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Hi there! I must admit this one puzzled me at first:) I only semi-protected the template, so only anonymous and recently established accounts wouldn't be able to work on it. Obviously, you don't fall under either category.

The problem turned out to be with Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Protection, which has cascading protection option turned on. That page transcludes (and protects) Hoysala Empire, which in turn uses (and protects) the "former country" infobox. It looks that Hoysala Empire will be featured on March 8, so you should be able to resume working on the template after that. In other words, you've got the wrong guy :)

Please let me know if anything is still unclear; I'd be happy to provide further help if you need it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, you are a decent editor who could use admin tools. I wouldn't, however, be comfortable nominating you myself because I just don't know you that well. On the other hand, if someone who does know you well nominates you and if no serious issues surface during the nomination, I'd be more than happy to support it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't help but just notice this discussion, so excuse me for cutting in. (Ezhiki, I'm the other main developer for the Former Country Infobox. Just so you know.) DT, it might interest you to know that I recently became an admin so if the template were to be protected on a long-term basis (something which I have long thought to be a good idea, considering the history of unhelpful changes we've had) I'll always be keeping an eye out on it and I can always unprotect it when you want to work on it. 52 Pickup (deal) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that's going to be very convenient for DT, though. Besides, this time the template got protected because of cascading protection of something else—no admin would be able to help DT in such a situation. Anyway, since you folks obviously worked together before, would you, 52 Pickup, be comfortable nominating DT for adminship? Like I said above, if no serious issues surface during the nomination, I'd be more than happy to support it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but since I only became an admin very recently (less than 2 weeks ago), I don't feel comfortable with nominating anybody for adminship right now. Regarding the temporary TFA-protection, that shouldn't happen too often, but I'll try keep an eye on future TFAs. - 52 Pickup (deal) 08:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be an admin at all to be able to nominate someone else. The important thing is that you trust the person and believe others would do the same. If your recent admin status is your only concern, I'd say don't worry :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zaire

Hi Domino theory, what do you think of this edit? I wasn't sure whether the paragraph should have been removed or not, because I lack sufficient knowledge on the subject. I noticed that you created the page Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville). Bash Kash (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Flag

What are we going to do? I really want to get rid of all Image:GR 134 crop.jpg occurences in the battle infobox. However, we have a editor that refuses to believe Image:Flag of the Habsburg Monarchy.svg was ever used by the Austrians and so keeps reverting them. Image:Banner of the Holy Roman Emperor without haloes (1400-1806).svg seems like a bad compromise as it uses the emblem of the German confederation. I uploaded Image:Flag of the Holy Roman Empire.png in a hope to reach a middle ground for use with Austria only. Would you be happy if this flag (Image:Flag of the Holy Roman Empire.png) was an alias of Template:Country data Holy Roman Empire which could be only called for Austria in infoboxes? Centy – reply• contribs – 04:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Former Subdivision

Hello, could please add the syntax?... Renata (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Former city-states

Category:Former city-states, which you created, 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) 07:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Estonia

Hi Domino theory, you have a new message at Talk:Duchy of Estonia. --Termer (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neapolitan Campaigns

Hello! You interests these article Neapolitan Campaigns? Doncsecz (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provinces of Finland

Greetings, there are few concerns about the formality of the articles and usage of guidelines in the articles about Finnish provinces. I am not sure if a new article is needed for the same provinces of different period as it raises some linguistic questions. I have added some thoughts at this talk page, in a slightly confusing way :-). --Pudeo ⺮ 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Livonia

Dear Domino theory, I notice that you moved "Swedish Livonia" to "Duchy of Livonia (1629–1721)" om 24 August 2008. However, the Swedish dominion of Livonia was NOT a Swedish Duchy, and it has always been known in English language history books as "Swedish Livonia", just as it in Swedish history books is known as "Svenska Estland", never "Hertigdömet Estland". This misunderstanding was further cemented on 7 September, when User:Termer added a reference linking to a Google book search of a book called "Colloquial Latvian", where it says that the expression "zviedru laiks" means "the Swedish period" and then the author explains in a parenthesis that the expression refers to the "sixteenth-sevnteenth century, when the Duchy of Livonia was part of the Swedish empire." He obviously calls it the Duchy of Livonia simply because the Swedes gained roughly the same area as the 1561-1621 Duchy of Livonia in the Truce of Altmark. So, could you please move it back? Best regards, Thomas Blomberg (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it to Talk:Duchy of Livonia (1629–1721)--Termer (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Former Countries

Good evening! I am not sure if you are still active on Wikipedia (as you haven't made an edit in exactly a month), but if you still are, I am quite glad. As you appear to be the de facto leader of the WikiProject Former Countries, you must know of the plights that are facing our project: an overwhelming majority of our members are either logging in or are not working to better the project, leaving the remainder with an enormouly overbearing workload. Hell, more than half of the articles associated with our project are unassessed and hundreds of these associated articles need major work in some way. Our project needs help and it needs help now! If you are still active, I ask that you respond immediatly to this plea so that you and I, along with other active members of the project, can save our dying WikiProject and grant her a glory greater than anything that she has yet seen! Laurinavicius (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm sorry for the extreme dramatics in the above paragraph, but I feel that they are necessary in the perilous times for our WikiProject. Besides, they've always been good at convincing people to do what I want them to do. :-)

In case you pop your head in...

Hello, Domino theory. You have new messages at Paine Ellsworth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CfD nomination of Category:Governorates of the Grand Duchy of Finland

I have nominated Category:Governorates of the Grand Duchy of Finland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Brazil FAC is now open

Empire of Brazil is now a Featured Article candidate. Since you're part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/Empires bureau, your opinion (either as support or oppose) is welcome. Here is the page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you telll me what is needed and how can I create a task force devoted to the Empire of Brazil? --Lecen (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unrecognized countries userbox

Hi, Domino theory! Express your interest in unrecognized countries by placing {{User:Presidentman/Ubx/URC}} on your userpage. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 13:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is and isn't a "historical former state?"

I'm preparing an important overhaul of the Ming Dynasty article. Does the Ming fall under the Chinese historical states task force? Thinking about whether I should join, and it comes down to what is and isn't a "historical former state...." From the task force page I'm not clear on this. --NickDupree (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Monarchies task force

Hi, Domino. I'd like to create a task force devoted to 19th century Latin American Monarchies (Brazil, Mexico, etc...). How is that accomplished? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:WPFCexist

Template:WPFCexist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third leader

Is it possible to add a third leader to Template:Infobox former subdivision? DCItalk 01:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Joined your wiki project on former states of China. Please let me know how can I assist you, new user so I could use some direction! --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former empires

Category:Former empires, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Green Giant (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World Almanac

Category:World Almanac, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. DexDor (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Worldalmanac

Template:Worldalmanac has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SFB 22:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free Territory of Trieste

Hi, I'm not an expert but could you check recent edits to the above? - I see that you made edits when it was "young". Regards Denisarona (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox historic subdivision

Template:Infobox historic subdivision has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox former subdivision. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Timmyshin (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox former subdivision

Template:Infobox former subdivision has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox settlement. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Kuwait parliamentary election, 2006

Template:Kuwait parliamentary election, 2006 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:Infobox former subdivision

Template:Infobox former subdivision has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox settlement. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PK2 (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:WPFCstatustext

Template:WPFCstatustext has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Divided regions has been nominated for deletion

Category:Divided regions has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]