Jump to content

Talk:Osraige

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

untitled

[edit]

Wrong link.

In this text fragment the link to Isabel de Clare is wrong (the link is now pointing at her grand daughter it seems): "As a consequence, the portion of Osraige comprising County Kilkenny became allotted to Strongbow and inherited by his eldest daughter, Isabel de Clare, who then married William Marshal in 1189." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:EBFE:0:85CC:D1CD:8650:9530 (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know if I'm happy with the text box. The weren't always kings of Munster etc.Red Hurley (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norse line

[edit]

there are a lot of "could be" and "possibly" in that section. You could not be totally happy with that, although I know that we're talking about largely undocumented times. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move Osraige -> Ossory

[edit]

I'm not really happy with the recent move of thia article, while "Ossory" may give more hits on google, this anglification is normally used on the latter earldoms, while the mediaval kingdom in scholarly sources are normally called "Osraige". I would appreciate a more detailed explanationfor this move the edit summary concerning google book hits. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been at this title since creation in 2005, a move should at least have been signalled on Talk page, or better still done by WP:RM. However the article is now (automatically) redirect-locked preventing the WP:BRD cycle. A technical request will be required to restore status. Then if someone wants to move they can put in WP:RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this should go through an RM if a move is desired, barring some very compelling evidence that the original move was out of line with the sources. It wasn't out of line with the process.Cúchullain t/c 15:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like going through WP:RM-procedures (whatever they might be, I try my best to avoid pages with shortcuts here) in order to overturn this move. Agree with In ictu ocoli that it should have been signalled here first though. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should have been discussed first, did you ever ask for the mover's input? But clearly a case can be made for either title. Opening it up for community input would help find the preferable title.Cúchullain t/c 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for input here, in the first post in this section. Nothing more than that. Time would probably be better spent improving this article than discussing what name it should have, so I'll leave it at that. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, just pointing out what should be done if a move is desired.Cúchullain t/c 21:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed also. What Finn Rindahl stated is true; nearly all modern scholastic sources on the topic use the spelling "Osraige" or even older "Osraighe". The article title technically should reflect this academic usage. However, it is inevitable that the anglicised spelling would also be commonly found in some literature; especially in translated works. As I have edited, I have tried to use the Irish spelling consistently when discussing any history prior to the Norman arrival. After that point, it does switch to "Ossory"; but this practice is open to debate.Ri Osraige (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saints

[edit]

Wikipedia discourages lists, preferring paragraphs, but the section on native saints was recently changed from paragraph form to a list. I would like to see it return to paragraph form.

Also, extraneous material has been added that is not germane to the topic, such as the feast days of each saint and their activities outside the kingdom. This information is presumably already included in the linked pages for each saint and does not belong in this article. Thebiggnome (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was unawares of Wikipedia's dislike of lists, but I feel it works better here so that each individual saint isn't lost in a jumble of text. (It's more than just a list of names; each named saint does include contextual information.) The feast day dates for each saint are more than just ancillary information; they're almost just as important as the place associated with the saint, as the specific date helps very much to distinguish amongst other saints bearing the same name. Surnames were not usually taken at that time. Any activities of any saint outside the kingdom are kept to a minimum but mention is made to show they did also work beyond Ossory; not just within it.Ri Osraige (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 07:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Osraige. 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) 13:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Osraige. 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) 17:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osraige&oldid=1204468917"