Talk:History of Europe

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Europe. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303215021/http://www.kwabs.com/tordesillas_treaty.html to http://www.kwabs.com/tordesillas_treaty.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575057_13/spain.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://chla.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=chla%3Bidno%3D2845579

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) 16:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

New lede

I've massively reduced the size of the lede. The new one still has obvious issues, but is clearly an improvement IMO. Please feel free to make your own additions/changes to it. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• IE expansion.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Images

I've removed 4 images (and relocated another two). I feel there is still yet some unnecessary degree of image cluttering. Besides the cluttering, a possible modification of the set of images (introducing different ones in some cases) could also be up for discussion, but it is such a wide discussion with so many different perspectives it probably needs the opinion from many editors to avoid systemic bias. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the challenging debate about the possible missing illustrations I'll start it here: for all the excess of images in the 20th century section, I think it fails to capture two key events with illustrations: the October revolution and the rise of fascism. More opinions welcome.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I leave here a gallery of possible new illustrations (and the concepts they might help to illustrate in the form of #hashtags) covering possibly poorly illustrated (yet historically significant) elements of the History of "Europe" for discussion. In the other hand while historical maps are certainly very convenient to avoid the geographical bias trap, currently there are a tad too many of them.

• 
  #Medieval antisemitism #Black Death #Middle Ages in the Low Countries
• 
  #Fall of Constantinople
• 
  #Ottoman Europe #Early Modern history of Serbia
• 
  #Proto-globalization #Portugal #Slave trade #Long 16th century
• 
  #October revolution
• 
  #Rise of nazism

--Asqueladd (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead length

Jayron32, TylerBurden - opening up a discussion for us here on the lead. Jayron, you've certainly improved the lead from what it was. However, I believe it is now too long. MOS:LEAD recommends 3-4 paragraphs - this article has 5. Not only that, but they are *very* long paragraphs. It's a 1000-word introduction (1053, to be precise). Looking through some of the longer featured articles in the history section, most seem to have leads of 400-700 words. Of course, this is an article with a very broad scope, so I think it requires closer to 700 than 400; but 1000+ is unwieldy and out of proportion to the rest of the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that it is too long, like you said not only does it have five paragraphs, but some of them are so long that they could easily be split in two. Some of the content should probably be cut from the lead, or at least shortened in some way. The question is what? The Russo-Ukranian war seems a bit like WP:RECENTISM to me, of course it has large implications, but we obviously don't know fully what yet, so including it in the lead on an article meant to be about the entire history of the continent may be a bit of a jumping the gun situation so to speak. TylerBurden (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. 653 words now.--Jayron32 16:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change, it's a big improvement. I didn't edit it myself because I saw that you had put considerable effort into it recently and would be in a better position to judge what to cut and what to keep. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I don't mind doing it, but I also don't object to others doing what is needed. I recognize my own limitations, and I don't hold my own text as precious. I invite and encourage others to improve upon my own highly imperfect work. --Jayron32 17:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense! There are some Wikipedians who are far touchier about someone editing down something they've just written, so I tend to be gun-shy in these situations. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Remember, no one owns anything here, we're all trying to improve things. :) TylerBurden (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Donbas war?

I changed Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russo-Ukrainian War to include the period since Euromaidan; @TylerBurden: disagrees with me. IMO the 2022 event quickly became a worldwide, not just a European topic because of a potential nuclear crisis and the effects on relations between the world's superpowers, but the war in Donbas(s) and the annexation of Crimea had already clearly affected European politics and beyond (e.g. Hunter Biden topic in Trump re-election campaign). Linking only to 2022-present makes a weak implication that nothing of matter happened before, kind of like mentioning economic transition in Eastern Bloc countries and EU enlargement while skipping the revolutions of 1989-1991. Besides, since the rest of the para talks about long-lasting events and/or events with long repercussions, I think it's more appropriate to start with a page that provides the complete background. What do you think? Daß Wölf 13:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Fine to me, altough there is disagreement on when the label "Russo-Ukranian war" starts to apply (2022 or 2014-2015) and that page should reflect that in my opinion. In any case that page provides more of the background, so I think you are right, it's better for the lead.Barjimoa (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)