User talk:Cavila/Archive1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cavila. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Interesting work you're doing on the kings' sagas. Haukur (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Early Irish law

I've noticed your edits for Early Irish law. If you're going to add CIH citations for Corus Besgnai, you might as well add them in the citations for all of the texts and otherwise put in some consisting formating in that section if you want to change mine. That's important but by no means my priority right now (even when I have a chance to work on Wiki) Buirechain (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ælfgifu

We can always do with having more Anglo-Saxons on the front page, so please think about nominating the most excellent Ælfgifu of Northampton for Did you know? All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Coenred

Thanks for the Felix fix -- much appreciated. I've bought myself a copy of Colgrave and it should arrive in the next week or two, but since Coenred is currently a candidate for featured article, the fix is very welcome. Hope to see you around some of the other Anglo-Saxon articles. Mike Christie (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:St Margaret

You should keep in mind when adding sources like that it implies that they have been consulted during the writing of the article ... which in this case plainly hasn't happened. The closest thing wiki articles have to this in practice is a section called "Further Reading", which consists of articles and books relevant to the article without the implication that they have been consulted by the editors. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That was mighty quick. Alright, I changed the heading to "Further reading". Thanks for notifying me. Cavila (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No probs. Btw, you seem to be a man after my own heart. I had the Leges Edwardi Confessoris on my to-do list (User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/To do). Thanks. You're doing some good work btw ... I hope you stick around. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Liber Pontificalis

Thanks for the supporting citation in Coenred of Mercia. Could you do me a favour and give me the bibliographic details for the book you cited from? I'd like to get the author's name(s), the book title, year of publication, publisher name and city, and ISBN. If you could also supply an English translation that would be great -- my Latin O level is over thirty years old so I'm a bit unreliable for such things. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Better still, the translation I've just supplied is a fairly recent one from the official translation by Raymond Davis, originally published in the 1990's I think. The full bibliographic reference for this and for the edition used (Mommsen) is to be found in "Primary sources" under Liber Pontificalis. Maybe you should have a look at the structure of the bibliography, which is a little consistent at places. Cavila (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Eric

Hey, thanks, I'll read over it tomorrow. I already see that some of the sources in the further reading section I possess. Maybe I can utilize such stuff. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I haven't finished editing Eric. Much of the material in the article could be organized better to avoid repetition and confusion, while a few points about a few things need to be added. I think if it is to go places this has to be done. I'll try to do some more next week, though not at the weekend as I'll be away. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help! That article by Downham looks like compulsory reading, so I should probably try to get hold of that somehow (regardless of whether I'll be using it here). I agree that it needs more coherence. About the structure, first. I wasn't too sure at the outset whether a chronological approach would work, though I've tried to write it in such a way that sections could be 'toggled' back and forth without disrupting the narrative too much. Some of the sections which merely summarise what the sagas have to say and which may be expanded to accommodate a literary discussion, do not fit this comfortably. That is why the Egill section ended up under "Reputation", but many others could be moved here, such as Eric's rule in Norway, the Orkneys, etc. (even though some bits would have to be briefly mentioned at an earlier stage). Second, I've included some stray nuggets of information that could be either edited out or incorporated into something more substantial. In the case of the Hebrides stuff, I've simply been guessing, without trying to impose an opinion on the material, but I'm not aware of any secondary literature on this. Third, the background section could be slimmed down as well as that bit on "romancing the stone" (Reycross). Just some thoughts. Cavila (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re;Cnut and Harthacnut

Yes, mentioning that might be useful. He hasn't provided any decent arguments, which makes me think of WP:CLUE. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Higham

Thanks for the heads up! I'll see if I can get hold of a copy. As you can see if you're watching the article, I'm still struggling with the best way to organize it; I think the tables are working well so far. When I have the article in decent shape, would you be willing to take a look and review it? I think it would benefit from having a more expert pair of eyes, if you're interested. Mike Christie (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviation help

Cavila, would you be able to explain an abbreviation I'm seeing in ms lists? Laistner gives a manuscript reference as, for example, "Vatican City: B.A.V., Vat. 643. s. ix." It's the "s" that I don't understand; I would expect "f. x.", meaning the tenth folio in the volume, but I can't tell if this is an identifying mark on a manuscript, or another way of saying folio. If you can clarify this for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, s. usually stands here for saeculum "century" (cognate with French siècle), so the note means that the manuscript has been dated to the ninth century. You'll find the same abbreviation used on (for instance) E-Sawyer and anglo-saxons.net, again for manuscripts. (P.S. German sources also use s. for Seite "page", but the context usually betrays which one is intended). Cavila (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A.G. van Hamel

Dear Cavila,

As you're the only author of the A.G. van Hamel I figured I might as well ask this question here rahter than on the article's talk page... In the "Early career (1910-1923)" chapter I came across this sentence:

His nomination in 1918 for the chair of Dutch language and literature at Jan te Winkel at the UvA projected him unfavourably into the spotlight, as several linguists voiced their objections, often in favour of another scholar of their choice.

What exactly does this mean? I'm trying to translate the article into Dutch for nl:Wikipedia (I have to admit: it's a disgrace we didn't have anything on him yet), but I'm pretty sure this sentence is wrong. Jan te Winkel is a person...

Thanks! Kind regards, Erik1980 (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Erik, thanks for spotting the error! It should 've said that the professorship held by Jan te Winkel became available. Most of the article is an English summary of Marc Schneiders' biography, supplemented by Maartje Draak's obituary (both listed in the references), so when unsure, you can always go back to the original sources. Keep up the good work! Cavila (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Forfess"

Cavila, you absolutely must finish User:Cavila/Forfess. What an interesting article. I remember purchasing a translation of that and the Death of Cu Roi some time ago, but it's been boxed away in the cycle of continual moves we've been afflicted with recently. Also, thanks for your input at Brut y Brenhinedd, I'm afraid that one's always been a mess.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, about time I finally turn my attention to some unfinished business, Forfess being one such example that's been gathering dust for too long. I've got no library trip scheduled in the foreseeable future, but that may not be necessary. Thank you too for your help over here; it's apparently enough to keep at least four editors busy. Cavila (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilfrid

Can you do me a favor and give me complete publication details on the sources for the information you just added to Willi's article? He's up at FAC, and the article uses the short form note, full bibliographical information in the sources style of referencing. I need to get your citations to match the rest of the citations. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, the Ad Wilfridi abbates ref. Is that TWO sources combined in one ref (with the ; separating them) or is the letter in both the Aldhelmi Opera and in English Historical Documents? I don't have access to either of those works, so I'll need full bibliographical information to put in the sources section. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That was just me being lazy, sorry! The shorthand means that Aldhelm's letter (here called Ad Wilfridi abbates, but that title has no canonical status) has been edited in the MGH volume and (partially) translated by prof. Whitelock in EHD. Mmm, not sure what format would be appropriate here, but here are all the details you need:

edited by Rudolf Ehwald (ed.), in his Aldhelmi Opera. MGH Scriptores, Auctores Antiquissimi 15. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1919. pp. 500-2.
translated by Dorothy Whitelock, in her English Historical Documents c. 500-1042. English Historical Documents I. 2nd ed. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1979. pp. 793-4 (no. 165). David C. Douglas = general editor of the EHD series.

And congratulations of course on yet another well-written, detailed and engaging article!!! Cavila (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Res gestae saxonicae sive annalium libri tres

Hey. When you updated this article, you had the English translation made at Berkeley. I have it on pdf, and it seems to indicated UCLA. So I wondered if you could double-check your source on that one. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It must have been that bit I copied straight from the Widukind article, so I'm not among the lucky few then to have an English translation of Res Gestae. Oddly enough, the catalogue on the ProQuest website does say Berkeley (not that these kinds of catalogues are free of error), but the UCLA Library, which probably keeps a paper copy, seems to have it filed under UCLA Dissertations.^{Whatever that means} Better trust your PDF-copy I suppose. Cavila (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

On the first page it says "The thesis of Raymond J. Wood is approved", there are three signatures, and then it says "University of California at Los Angeles ... May, 1949". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Berkeley may have been involved somehow, who knows, but without any credits for that on the actual copy, it's pretty much out of luck. Cavila (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Medieval text

I've set up the subpage for the proposal and moved the example there - i.e. Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Medieval text. I've give a few pointers to consider in trying to decide what to include at Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Medieval text and set it up with example (part filled) for Pangur Bán. David Ruben ^Talk 01:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response and help! I'll take a closer look and notify a few editors who might be interested. Cavila (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Spooky. I was about to create something similar to this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, then I'm not the only one thinking something has been conspicuous by absence! Could you have an expert look? I'm not sure all possible types of text fit in as comfortably as I hoped they would (and I might have forgotten about a few). The broad medieval orientation is not the problem I guess, but a poem and say a penitential handbook may not require the same parameters. Cavila (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If the parameters are optional, there's no problem adding enough to cover everything. The one I was going to start was intended to have parameters for legal texts, like charters. There are some famous ones that could make use of them (e.g. Magna Carta). Also the MS field prolly needs to be more flexible. Some texts, like Geoffrey of Monmouth and Bede, have hundreds of MSS. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, that line can get a bit longish. To work around this, some sort of summary may be desirable or an optional field for "principal manuscript(s)" (usually the earliest but not always so). Feel free to add anything if you feel something is missing. Cavila (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

email

Hey, can you enable your email? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Lo, I'm up to date now with the latest developments in information technology and interwebbery (meaning I've got e-mail activated). Cavila (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Caps

No problem. 'Tis my understanding of MOS:CAPS, anyway.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Lug/Lugh

Cavila - I can appreciate your viewpoint in seeking to proffer the name Lug over Lugh, but Lugh has become the accepted term for relating to this particular figure over a wide array of articles, including the central Lugh itself. I'm not disagreeing with your choice, I'm simply aiming for uniformity in our approach towards Lugh on Wikipedia. Nilzy (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. It's a noble goal to want to achieve a level of uniformity across a range of articles, but there are two problems here. First of all, Lug is a literary character with deeper roots who is not confined to any historical period, but happily hops from one tale to another, cropping up in Old Irish literature as well later folk-tales. Literary scholars tend to favour the earlier form Lug when dealing with early Irish literature, but occasionally, "Lugh" when dealing with the latter. Second and most importantly, for the article to better reflect WP:RS, it should really be at "Lug", the preferred form in secondary literature, which after all, deals mostly with early Irish texts. I prefer to stick with WP:Naming conventions and WP:RS. Cavila (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll let it lie at that then.Nilzy (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What sockpuppets, or even users, are allowed to do, and what they are not allowed to do.

Attacking people is not allowed, and you were wrong to restore that attack. Don't do it again.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I had no idea it was acceptable to simply delete insults and attacks made by other editors, as that would make people's behaviour visible only in edit histories. The only wiki-guideline I've been able to dig up just now is "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate". But anyway, that user's sockpuppetry has been exposed since that edit, so there is no need to cry. Cavila (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea it was acceptable... Common sense should have told you that it is unacceptable to act as a proxy for insults and attacks made by other editors -- meaning, of course, that you have assumed responsibility for said insults and attacks yourself, making them as if they had come from you directly. And no one is "crying": they are simply informing you of the future consequences of your actions should you repeat them, since you cannot now claim not to know this. --Calton | Talk 01:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

... making them as if they had come from you directly. Sure, almost as if I had endorsed that comment on his user page or worse, said it myself. Apologies for inadvertently creating that impression, if anyone got that from reading the edit history. So no clear guidelines then about removing attacks? Oh well. Cavila (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're feeling adventurous...

Works of Wulfstan of York Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Pick and choose? Considering certain time constraints I'm currently wrestling with, I might actually go for Geþyncðo, an interesting little text on status. It's no doubt discussed in some detail by Ann Williams in her World before Domesday, but I find the price of £ 60.00 a bit too steep to my liking (thanks to Continuum) and libraries can be slow to update their collections. If only publishers were interested in sending out copies to selected Wikipedians in addition to reviewers! But anyway, I'm rambling. I should be able to manage enough sources for this one. Cavila (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, because it's way beyond my normal haunts, but it's a reasonably important article in terms of English history and lit. Wulfstan's a pretty big boy for the time frame. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Question. How do we hide excessive linkage?

Please see my response at Help talk:What links here#Question. How do we hide excessive linkage?. Hope it helped. BTW - your User page says you are taking a wiki-break. I believe working through your wiki-break is against Wiki union rules. Pknkly (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

More discussion at Help talk:What links here#Question. How do we hide excessive linkage?. Pknkly (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Egbert vs. Ecgberht

There's a debate about spelling of the name of the Anglo-Saxon king Egbert at Template_talk:Mercian_monarchs that I would like to get more input on: should it be "Egbert" or "Ecgberht" in the template? Mike Christie (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hemming's Cartulary

I just put it up for GA status... in case you have any last minute additions to put in. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So it's passed. Now... what is it missing to make it "complete" without being too much detail? I'm thinking FAC at some point... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Rayner Lothbroc

Since you are one of the editors who have previously removed the addition of this term from the article on Ragnar Lodbrok, an additional input and clarification from you on Talk:Ragnar_Lodbrok#Rayner_Lothbroc might be helpful, as the issue still seem to be unresolved. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a tad on the late side, but there's really no need to rehearse the arguments. The self-published book, whether or not it is favourably reviewed by a newspaper, does not meet our criteria of RS, let alone that it is sufficient to establish English usage. Cavila (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It seem the discussion came to a rest after Cuchullains comment, thanks anyway. All the best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Englynion y Beddau

Cavila, you are indispensable. With your efforts we may make up for the sad departure of Nicknack009. I just noticed that you've been editing for exactly a year today. I know you're not keen on userboxes, but please accept this barnstar for your many excellent article creations and improvements.

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For your many new articles and content additions on Celtic and medieval topics, I award you this barnstar.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your appreciation! That's a nice surprise. I may not be in it for the barnstars, but I can't really object either, can I? I'd like to use this opportunity to thank my family, who supported me during the worst of times, and the entire crew, without whom all this would not have been possible, and of course, my dedidated fans. Cavila (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hemming's Cartulary

I've put Hemming's Cartulary up for peer review, here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Hemming's Cartulary/archive1. Comments are appreciated. (I should be picking up two works on the Cotton Library tomorrow which will hopefully give me more background on how the manuscript came into the hands of Sir R. Cotton). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'll see what improvements can be made and what else should be added. Cavila (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Jarlath

Hi Cavila, I've noticed with great interest some of your welcome recent additions to the page on Jarlath (Iarlaithe). He is patron saint of Tuam, my hometown. Technically he may have been known as Iarlaithe in his own time, but really it is more appropriate to call him Jarlath. He is never referred to as Iarlaithe. A number of institutions and places are named after him in the town and none refer to him as Iarlaithe. As Iarlaithe is his Irish language name, its use is not usual as this is not an Gaeltacht (Irish speaking) area. Some of the quoted text in the page refers to him as Iarlaithe so I left it alone but it is quite irregular. In a way, I think the page's title should be Saint Jarlath, its doubtful anybody searches for Iarlaithe. Also his feast day is definitely the 6th of June, which I referenced. The 25th or 26th December is the date of his death. Many thanks for all the additions to the page. ClintMalpaso —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClintMalpaso (talk • contribs) 14:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Clint. I understand your point of view, the name of the saint being of course popularly known in Tuam and elsewhere as Jarlath and indeed enshrined in institutions like St. Jarlath's College. But with subjects of historical interest like this one, we need to follow current usages in reliable secondary sources. I didn't make that up, but this is normative practice per WP:Name and WP:RS: "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject". All the scholarly sources I've used, all of them in English, and many more besides happen to settle for Iarlaithe. For further information, see WP:Name. The situation would probably have been different if we had an article devoted entirely to, say, the cultural significance of the saint in the 20th and 21st century. Any sources dealing with that subject would probably agree on Jarlath, or so I expect, but this is no such article. (P.S. As for accessibility, we have automatic article redirects to fix this) Cavila (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Wikipedia:Contents_box

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:Contents_box , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis^☂ 01:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Academic journals

Why are these secondary sources? --Crusio (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Crusio. Per secondary sources, of course, but then I'd agree that the definition presents certain problems, relative as it is to what one is studying. It is not a universal one across or within all sciences and arts. Even from the narrow historiographic or literary perspective, which was more or less my take on it, academic journals do not present secondary literature exclusively. They could very well contain text editions which are then used as primary sources, or obituaries, etc. I'll delete the supra-category from Academic journals, to be on the safe side. Cavila (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't "sources" then be re-added? Many academic journals are primary sources, because they will publish original research reports. Some (perhaps even most, but definitely not all) also publish review articles, which I guess makes them secondary sources, too. Perhaps "academic journals" should be classed under both primary and secondary sources... Or just simply add back "sources"... --Crusio (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy either way. There may also be a more laborious answer to this, which is to re-arrange the way "sources" is currently set up and create new subcategories for both primary and secondary sources based on what criteria one is using to define them, eg in natural sciences or in humanities. In that way, academic journals, or specific subcategories for academic journals, could end up under various categories. Just a thought. Cavila (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And of course, the same thing holds true for Category:Academic literature as a whole, of which "Academic journals" is part. It wasn't my intention to work on this at all, but I'll see what I can do. Cavila (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that it might be best to keep "primary" and "secondary" simply together within "Sources". There are going to be many sources that depending on the circumstances may be considered primary or secondary. Nature Review Genetics would be considered secondary, Nature Genetics would be primary, unless they publish a review or commentary (what they also do) and then it would be secondary... --Crusio (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings and all that ...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hey, Merry Christmas to you! Hope you have a good one! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Bodleian Library

No probs. Your (new) approach sounds sensible to me! In hindsight, perhaps I should have named these various categories "Manuscripts in the [insert Library here]", but the more comprehensive "collection" should do fine I guess, especially when the categories aren't very large. Cavila (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

EBK

Thanks to the efforts of devoted editors like you, article space looks to be free of links to earlybritishkingdoms.com Go team!--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)