Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography

For example, subordinate countries are included to the infobox in a historical matter:

• Ulm, Kingdom of Württemberg, German Empire (for Albert Einstein)
• Prague, Kingdom of Bohemia, Austria-Hungary (for Franz Kafka)
• Kryvyi Rih, Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union (for Volodymyr Zelenskyy)
• Ljubljana, SR Slovenia, SFR Yugoslavia (for Josip Broz Tito)

Otherwise, it could be general for historical cities (e.g. Leningrad, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union)

49.150.12.163 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: Roger Rogerson was dismissed from the police force in 1986 and Glen McNamara left the police force in 1990.^[1][2] Melbguy05 (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Location:

If A or B, what should be the length and emphasis on criticism of the pro-Israel stance in the final paragraph:

1. Three or four sentences, dwelling on criticism (current version)
2. One or two sentences, not giving current emphasis on criticism of the stance as in this version

Coretheapple (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes – Both should be linked to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template. (Example of this version: [1])
2. Yes – Both should be linked to a new "See also" section. (Example of this version: [2])
3. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be added to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template.
4. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be linked to a new "See also" section.
5. No – Neither should be linked to this article.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Bogazicili (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

By way of comparison, articles on Berlin, which calls its top-level subdivisions Bezirk and its second-level subdivisions Ortsteil (which meanings do not differ substantially from Stadtbezirk and Stadtteil), uses "borough" for the former and "locality" for the latter.

This is confusing in several different ways:

• Readers may take a minute to work out that what some articles call a "borough" is the same thing other articles call a "district".
• The literal translation "city part" for Stadtteil sounds vague and doesn't really convey any scale or significance to the reader. It also sounds a bit "awkward" to my mind. The term "locality" used for Ortsteil is less awkward, but no less vague.
• The use of "quarter" for Stadtteil is wholly nonsensical as the Stadtteile themselves can be further subdivided informally into German: (Stadt)viertel / Kölsch: Veedel, which literally translates as..."(city) quarter". Berlin articles use "neighbourhood" for such further, informal subdivisions of their Ortsteile.

I would like to propose the following consistent approach for the subdivisions of German cities:

• (Stadt)bezirk or other top-level division to be rendered as borough
• Stadt-/Ortsteil or other second-level division to be rendered as district
• Viertel or other (usually informal) third-level division to be rendered as neighbourhood except in proper nouns^note (e.g. Severinsviertel → "Severin Quarter", Belgisches Viertel → "Belgian Quarter")

Subjectively, as a binative of English and German, this is what seems most intuitively comprehensible/evocative, but there are also objective reasons speaking for it:

1. The City of Cologne's official web page on its subdivisions alongside this official map of Veedel uses precisely this borough-district-neighbourhood schema while retaining "quarter" for proper nouns (example)
2. Berlin likewise officially uses "boroughs" for Bezirke and "districts and neighbourhoods" for Ortsteile and their subdivisions
3. The borough-district schema has also been used for translating Stockholm's top-level stadsdelsområden and second-level stadsdelar, the latter even being cognate with Stadtteile.

However, I didn't want to charge ahead and make these changes without first inviting comment to see if there might be any good reasons this isn't already what's used across the board. So...what do other editors think? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 12:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This dispute is not limited to this page but also the Defense of Sihang Warehouse page as well, where the disputed matter is largely the same. As I see it, the Japanese sources clearly demonstrate this notion of the IJA 3rd Division's participation to be incorrect. Regardless of being primary sources, I don't see how there is room to assert this claim when the actual participating units are well documented in Japanese. I have been simply translating records and using zero synthesis to reach my conclusions. It is documented that the IJA 3rd Division was at the bank of Suzhou River trying to cross it when this happened. It is documented that the IJN's Special Naval Landing Forces were the ones involved in the attack on Sihang Warehouse. The only counterclaims @Wahreit has provided are western sources in which 5/6 did not even provide citations for their claims (and half had no citations at all!).

It would be great if someone else can offer their opinion, especially if they can read Japanese sources. I know the heavy use of primary and Japanese language sources is far from ideal on my side as well.

Best Regards, Adachi 2024/07/16 Adachi1939 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

1. "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized Turco-Mongol dynasty that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857."
   • Or: "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857."
2. No changes.

Kindly, state the preferred options below. PadFoot (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)