User talk:Neddyseagoon/May to Aug 06

Pages

Carausian Revolt

Could you please provide references for this article?--Panairjdde 17:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly just split it off from Carausius, with some extra info, so I'm not sure of the references

You should always include references for an article, otherwise don't write it. As a rule, other WP articles are not considered valid references.--Panairjdde 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As a rule, other WP articles are not considered valid references." I didn't mean have Carausius as the reference(s) for Carausian Revolt - I meant that Carausian Revolt was stubbed off Carausius, so if we're looking for references, we should ask the initial creators of and other contributors to Carausius (especially User:Llywrch and User:Everyking). Hope that clarifies things.Neddyseagoon 12:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I hope they will answer you soon.--Panairjdde 17:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican saints

Thanks for your work on this! I will create articles for saints in the Canadian and US Anglican provinces, since I have those calendars handy, and see if I can find resources for the other provinces on the web. In any event, I am readying a proposal for an Anglicanism wikiproject. If you'd like to check out what I've scoured up so far, see User talk:Fishhead64/Anglicanism - let me know what you think. Cheers! Fishhead64 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Caratacus

Neddy, I need your help. The page on Caratacus once said that Dio Cassius called him a "barbarian Christian" - however this turned out to be down to a transcription error on the Lacus Curtius. The error has been corrected both there and here, but on its talk page User:WikiRat1 refuses to accept this. I have posted links to scans of the passage in question in both Cary and Boissevain, but he's undeterred. As a classicist, I would appreciate it if you could add your expertise. Thanks. --Nicknack009 17:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will try my best! :-) [[User:Neddyseagoon|Neddyseagoon | [[Usertalk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 12:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! May not need you, as it turns out - I took it to mediation, the guy who agreed to mediate asked us to list our sources, I did, and there's been silence ever since from WikiRat - but I appreciate the assistance anyway. --Nicknack009 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I saw, but thought I'ld add my tupennyworth anyway.:-) [[User:Neddyseagoon|Neddyseagoon | [[Usertalk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 09:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zile

Hey, I rewrited Zile using Turkish Wikipedia as my source. I would like to know if you can check the language and edit if necessary.Ugur Olgun 18:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neddyseagoon's edits to Jarrow

(moved to Talk:Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Priory)

Adminius, Sallustius Lucullus etc

The Times piece about Adminius, Sallustius and Fishbourne - good find! I'll have to do some digging on those inscriptions. Meanwhile, I've incorporated the information into Fishbourne Roman Palace as well. --Nicknack009 14:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye

Could you keep an eye on the stub Age of Sail? Thank you.

The Roman Navy is likely to face some expansion, I translated a good article from German about its history, but the German sourcing is not up to wiki standards here. Can you perhaps help me with some English sources? (translation is hidden in the discussion of Roman military history) Wandalstouring 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 12:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taskforces

Ancient Near East Warfare Taskforce

Thanks for the invite, but I'm afraid hieroglyphs, pyramids and gods are more my thing. Unfortunately, I know nothing about warfare. Sorry. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo - but please do spread the word to any more militaristic fellow Egyptologist wikipedians! :-) Neddyseagoon 15:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go! I'll take care of the remaining setup (mainly adding links to it in a few different places) shortly; other than that, it should be ready to go. Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tar muchly or, in proper English, many thanks! Neddyseagoon 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to exercise a bit of restraint when doing tagging for the new task force. With few exceptions, entire cities and civilizations really shouldn't be tagged, as they're not (primarily) under the purview of WP:MILHIST. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was getting carried away :-D, although a lot of the military history for this period needs stubbing out from the civilizations pages, hence the tag. Neddyseagoon 21:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as you can come up with a suitably calming explanation when the editors of those articles come by wondering why we've tagged them, feel free to follow your own judgement on that :-) Kirill Lokshin 22:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's more than alright. Let me finish adding {{WPCHINA}} tags and I can hop over and see what you need. -- Миборовский 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thank you for the invitation. I am not sure that I will have that much to contribute, but I can make an effort to go through my source material for relevant articles. I did find one that covered the battle wounds of the Hittites depicting the Egyptian "victory" at the Battle of Kadesh from an article I have in an issue of KMT. Likewise I may have some other things to contribute along that vein. Let me know what is being worked on and I'll see what (if anything) I can dig up that may be relevant.

P.S. Love your nickname; I have been a fan of the Goons since I was a kid. :-) Captmondo 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime military history task force

Just wanted to inform you that the Maritime warfare history task force has been created :) Inge 13:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Category:Pearl Harbour Films

Shouldn't this be at Category:Pearl Harbor Films? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman towns and cities in Israel

Hello Neddyseagoon,

All possible candidates for this category are instead located in Category:Roman sites in Israel (with the exception of Decapolis, which I just moved myself). Would it be appropriate to merely link the Category:Roman sites in Israel to Category:Roman towns and cities by country and delete Category:Roman towns and cities in Israel? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category names

Categories for conflicts really should be named "Wars of X" rather than "X wars" (sorry for being picky, but it took a huge fight to get them all into a standard form in the first place, which I don't really feel like doing again). Also, do we really need Category:Wars of Ancient Rome by period? As far as I know, that's the only way we'll be sub-dividing them, and there will only be two (three?) sub-categories, so I think we should keep them directly under Category:Wars of Ancient Rome and avoid the extra level in the hierarchy. Kirill Lokshin 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops, sorry. Well, there is Roman-Persian Wars which will be in both, but otherwise, fair point. Neddyseagoon 16:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Do you mind if I go ahead and delete Category:Wars of Ancient Rome by period then?

Great work on the categorization, incidentally. You might want to look around Category:Battles of Rome as well; I vaguely recall that there were some separate Republic/Empire categories which can be nested under the corresponding war categories now. Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! :-) Some help with moving Roman empire wars into Wars of Roman Empire perhaps too please! I'm starting to clear up my own mess, but it could take a while! Neddyseagoon 16:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman site -> Roman cities and towns

Hi. It's good to run into someone else who is interested in ancient history of the Classical World. I notice that you have been creating Roman cities and towns as sub cats of Roman sites. It's all to the good, but that leaves the question begging: what about a site makes it Roman if it's not a city or town. Any number of non-cities and towns were given Latin names at some point? Does that make the Roman?

In my book, no. My cats here only include towns founded or occupied as towns by Rome, not renamed ones.Neddyseagoon 20:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think of "India", "Scythia" or "Hibernia". Many places that aren't cities or towns fell within the limit of the Roman Empire, does that make them Roman? If so, categories of such countries as France, Spain, Portual, Italy, Greece, Israel, Lebanon, are superfluous as any geographical location within such country was "Roman".

True, true. But we're talking specific sites aren't we, not whole vast areas? Neddyseagoon 20:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, there are a few "sites" that may or may not be considered Roman although not a city or town, but these seem few and inclusion somewhat arbitrary. Take Mount Etna (Aetna), which isn't a city or town, but the Romans had cult rituals practiced on it and it formed part of the Roman mythology. These places will be very few and many of them end up being inhabited from time to time (such as Legions camps) thus making them de facto cities or towns. This is not to be critical but just to get a common understanding as to what belongs and what doesn't belong to a Roman site category. Let me know your thoughts. Carlossuarez46 20:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you see in 'Roman sites in England' 's sub-categories, I'm also creating one for religious sites, forts, etc, in parallel, as sub-categories of 'Roman sites in...' Neddyseagoon 20:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Diocese template

Hi. I'm sorry to have reverted your edits to Template:Diocese, but they cause some legacy issues with it. I'm not entirely sure what information {{{seats}}} and {{{parent}}} are supposed to show, but they need to be added with ParserFunctions so that the 50 or so articles that already use the template will still make sense. I've added usage documentation at Template talk:Diocese. You might want to discuss extra parameters there. — Gareth Hughes 14:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're for previous seats and parent dioceses - see Diocese of Leicester for example of their use. They wouldn't be compulsory, but they do simplify it for dioceses like Leicester which have a complex earlier history. Could you help me add those with ParserFunctions - I'm not terribly au fait with it. Many thanks. [[User:Neddyseagoon|Neddyseagoon | [[Usertalk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 14:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean. ParserFunctions can be used to change how a template looks depending whether certain parameters are present or not. So, in this case, we'd want to place the #if function around the extra rows in the template to exclude them if the appropriate parameter is not present. I'll sandbox it, and, if it works, put it in the template. — Gareth Hughes 14:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that worked. You can add these parameters in any article, but they won't show up unless the parameters are defined. — Gareth Hughes 14:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaignbox Roman conquest of Spain

Hello Neddyseagoon. You just added a Template:Campaignbox Roman conquest of Spain to several articles (I presume). This is not acceptable and is clearly POV. Not the use of a campaignbox, but saying it is of the Roman conquest of Spain. It was not the modern country of Spain that the Romans invaded and conquered, it was the whole of the Iberian Peninsula. Iberia or Hispania, covers not only the modern country of Spain, but Portugal also. The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Spain before that! It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples), and they called it Al-Andalus. This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, the Template Campaignbox Roman conquest of Spain should be renamed Campaignbox Roman conquest of Hispania. I'm doing just that. The Ogre 17:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woh, steady on. All perfectly valid points, but that's why I made Spain link to Hispania Neddyseagoon 17:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my friend, I Know. But it's not the same... But I fixed it. Do you agree? The Ogre 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree, my mistake thank you for explaining at such length! :-) Neddyseagoon 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! We are here to serve. :) The Ogre 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Sertorian Revolt is essential. You should take a look at Timeline of Portuguese history: Pre-Roman Western Iberia (Before the 3rd Century BC) and Timeline of Portuguese history: Roman Lusitania and Gallaecia (3rd Century BC to 4th Century AC). Lots of info there that should interest you. Enjoy! The Ogre 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Image:Smfirstholland.jpg

Moved to image's own page

Nleddy Sleagloon!

Sorry, turned into Mr Yakamoto for a second there. Just thought you'd like to know that you are in my 'Honorable Spons that I admire' (Wikipedians actually) box on my userpage for seemingly being the most devoted Goons fan on the 'pedia. Have a photograph of Queen Victoria. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]