User talk:Neddyseagoon/Oct to Nov 06

Category:Ancient Greek and Roman leisure

Clearly, XII scripta is more appropriate in the new category than it was in Category:Ancient Rome. However, your AWB edit summary referred to a CFD discussion on the topic, which I can't seem to find. Which CFD was this? I'd like to read it in order to better categorize articles in the future. —ptk✰fgs 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops, that was a misprint - sorry! User|Neddyseagoon 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romans in the Mendips

Devolved to Talk:Charterhouse, Somerset

Latin translation

Hi Neddy, I'm looking for a Latin --> English translation on this text, at WikiSource. Let me know if you can help. Thanks, File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think of one, but will try to make my own. Where could I put it on the Wikisource page? Under the Latin original? User|Neddyseagoon 12:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Ares1.gif

Devolved to Image talk:Ares1.gif

Image:BSR.jpg

Devolved to Image talk:BSR.jpg

Moretum

Thank you very much for correcting my mistakes in spelling. As my native language is German such help is always welcome. Best regards Derglennemiller

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Roman emperor

Template:Infobox Roman emperor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Philip Stevens 13:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info-box

I wasn't sure if you were saying that was his official name or not, since most of the other emperors took Imperator as their praenomen. He never would have been called that. However, if its just a tag for the info-box (which already says Roman emperor), you could put "Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator" - which was the way he put it. He used it more as a military title (there was a number after it on coins, for how many times he been proclaimed imperator.) Or maybe the info boxes can say "Emperor (or Imperator) "blank"" with the real name under it, in order to make the position and commonly used English name clear, and keep the real name historically accurate. LaurenCole 18:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Full name

What does "refull name" means? [1] --BaldClarke 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a typo - will investigate User|Neddyseagoon 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's ok. It's 'full name' (ie all names and titles) as opposed to the header (ie 'name=') which is the commonly used English single name. User|Neddyseagoon 15:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check better, you made a mess. I do not think you really wanted to write "the Senate was refull named as the Commodian Fortunate Senate".--BaldClarke 15:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that was me, it was unintentional - AWB cock-up. Could you help with rewriting entries with Template:Infobox Roman emperor with 'title=Emperor of the Roman Empire' please, that'ld take the pressure off my AWBing? User|Neddyseagoon 16:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please STOP using an automatic search and replace program? You are disrupting the articles!--BaldClarke 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a better idea? I've got 100 emperors to get through! Or is that an offer of help? User|Neddyseagoon 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? In order to change an infobox, we should allow such a mess???--BaldClarke 16:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying allow it, just help me to a)clear up the mess I was unaware AWB was making; and b)tweak the infoboxes on the entries now Roman emperor infobox is no more. User|Neddyseagoon 16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Man's Bible

Hi Neddy!

Noticed you just dropped in on Maxianus... thanks! I went to Ravenna and looked at the throne in detail.

--Amandajm 04:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar's invasions of Britain

I rated the article B because it's the highest rating I can give without the article pass Ga nomination, A-class review and so on. But this article had heaps of potential and I think you should put it up for GA nomination. Good Luck :)! Kyriakos 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw shucks! I've put it up for it - if you'ld like to back it that'ld be great. User|Neddyseagoon 21:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to support this article too. I am too new to know how. Please advise on how this all works (nominating?, voting?, etc.) and where this is documented. Curtius 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Caesar's invasions of Britain is the place to add your opinions on this one. Handy tips on how to nominate, for military articles at least, are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Requests for A-Class status.User|Neddyseagoon 21:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Republican coinage

I note that you have more than the usual number of references and am currently struggling with how to handle this on the Roman Republican coinage page. Any specific advice you can provide me on what I have done to date would be appreciated.

Curtius 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spooks

Hi there Neddy. I've been looking through the Spooks edit history to find ~~victims~~ users that have some knowledge of Spooks. Spooks is currently under peer review], and I would like to get it to GA at least. With little effort I think the article is capable of reaching that level. Even if you have no knowledge of Spooks, some help with copy editing would be much appreciated. The two main sections to be done at the moment are the Critical Response section, which needs some references, and Spooks in popular culture. Any assistance you could provide with creating episode pages would be excellent, though I see it as secondary.Thanks RHB 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subcats of Category:Women in ancient warfare

Hello, I'm writing about your recent subcatgorizations in the Women in ancient warfare category. Do you really think that it is neccessary to have so many subcategories? There are only a few women that fit in each, and in the case of Japanese Women in ancient warfare, there is only one individual. I really think that these extra categories are far too narrow and specific and aren't neccessary at all, especially given how few women are even in the Women in ancient warfare supercategory to begin with. Asarelah 00:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they may grow, and the Roman sub-categories are useful as subcats of 'Ancient Roman enemies' etc. User|Neddyseagoon 00:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that these categories will grow beyond a few more entries. I have been reading every book and every website that I can dig up about Women in ancient warfare, and there are only a few recorded examples in history of women acting as active participants. There simply won't ever be enough articles in the supercategory of Women in Ancient Warfare to make any of these subcategories relevant. Trust me on this one. I've been researching the subject of Women in Ancient Warfare for months now.

Furthermore, it isn't appropriate to put the Nubian women in warfare into the Female enemies of Rome category because Candace of Meroe wasn't an enemy of the Roman Empire, she was an enemy of Alexander the Great. It doesn't even say if Shanakdakheto even had any interactions with Rome at all. (Cartimandua was an ally of Rome, by the way, so she doesn't belong in the Female enemies of Rome either).

Being corrected.User|Neddyseagoon 10:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, can you please respond to the messages I send you on my talk page instead of yours? Its easier that way. Asarelah 00:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, however small, they make navigation easier, for we mere mortals who are unfamiliar with the topic - it is hard to tell, and my sub-cats mean they can then be linked to the relevant civilization.User|Neddyseagoon 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply place the articles themselves into the relevent category for each civilization? For example, Arsinoe III was already in the Hellenistic Egyptians category, so it anyone in that category would find her there. Arachidamia was in the Spartan princesses category, and so forth. Anyone looking at the categories for the civilizations would see each article there, rather than having to go through another subcategory. Asarelah 00:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but Roman women involved in the Roman army, or barbarian queens which Rome faced, or Hellenistic queens in war, etc.etc. are important themes in themselves, deserving a sub-category within, say, Hellenistic Warfare, which shouldn't be subsumed into 'Hellenistic women' etc in general. And the same is probably true of the Chinese etc equivalents. Also, could we have this conversation just on my talk page, or just on yours - this is getting confusing! :-)User|Neddyseagoon 10:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Rome geographic stubs, "post-proposed"

As you didn't re-propose Category:Ancient Rome geographic stubs, I've listed it for you at WSS/P. I've merged the -town-stubs in there, since SFD and WSS/P both seemed pretty clear-cut about that one, but this one seems likely to at least have a fighting chance. Alai 10:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright?

I noticed that the article S. Teodoro was a direct cut-and-paste from [ttp://roma.katolsk.no/teodoro.htm]. Are you the copyright holder? Joyous! | Talk 17:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just this moment copy-editing it down to avoid this problem. Could you reinstate the page please? [[User:Neddyseagoon|Neddyseagoon - [[User talk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titular churches in Rome

Moved to Category talk:Titular churches in Rome

Conventions on Churches of Rome

Would you agree on a list of conventions in articles about churches in Rome? I propose the following:

The name of the church goes in Italian, unless the church English name is really famous
The name of the article is the name of the church, completely spelled out (e.g. "San Nicola", not "S. Nicola"), with the shortest unambiguous specification: "Santa Prassede", not "Santa Prassede all'Esquilino", but "San Sebastiano al Palatino"
The first sentence is: "<name of the church> is a 4th century (titular/basilica) church in Rome. It is dedicated to <name of the saint>, and is located at <place, if noteworthy>.

--Panarjedde 16:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me [[User:Neddyseagoon|Neddyseagoon - [[User talk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could try Template:Rome church [[User:Neddyseagoon|Neddyseagoon - [[User talk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Romanbikini.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Romanbikini.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor basilica

I noticed that you've been changing many of the links to basilica to minor basilica, but there is no actual article for the latter--it's only a redirect page to the basilica article. Also, some of your edits are resulting in "minor minor basilica".--BillFlis 17:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aiming to make Minor basilica a page not a redirect, since it's a separate concept from Basilica itself. I'm also trying to mend the minor minor thing - AWB is not the finest of tools! [[User:Neddyseagoon|Neddyseagoon - [[User talk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 20:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

On 28 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Santa Caterina a Magnanapoli, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Battista Palumba

Neddy, Since you seem to have turned your back on the Arts of War for the Arts of Peace (or the Art of Whooar!), the above (aka Master IB with bird) needs an article if you fancy it. Johnbod 18:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Mosaic

Nice work with the merge - Skysmith 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Greek vase painting

I don't accept that there is a need for the category you have created. It adds nothing in terms of logical clarity or searchability. In my experience the needless multiplication of categories simply makes information harder to find. I suggest the category be replaced by augmenting the History section of Pottery of ancient Greece (with is badly in need of improvement anyway) and creating a redirect page of Ancient Greek vase painting to Pottery of ancient Greece.Twospoonfuls 14:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would defend this sub-cat, but you're right, that root cat does need a lot of tidying. Neddyseagoon - talk 14:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harmodius and Aristogiton edit?!

Hi, I do not understand the reason for this edit. It removes useful and long-standing material. Did you mean to do that? Haiduc 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant to stub out the info on the scuplture to its own page, but I should have left the image, yes, sorry.Neddyseagoon - talk 20:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]