User talk:Notuncurious/Archive 1

Leave a message here.

Pehthelm

You've done a good job on this article btw ... very well done. The changes needed are only small elements of rewording and balancing. Columban is more usual, Columbite is uncommon. The Northumbrian kingdom embraced England north of the Humber as well as the extreme south-east of Scotland, so surely "Great Britain between the Humber and the Forth" is more accurate than merely "what is now Scotland south of the firths of Clyde and Forth".No?

The move was politically expedient, as the Iona-oriented Columban churches and clerics (who were mostly Irish) were now replaced by Northumbria's Anglo-Saxon, York-oriented churches and clerics, thus facilitating Northumbrian hegemony in its territories.

It doesn't make sense, as Oswiu also encouraged the Irish christians to spread in his territories. Encouraging York over Lindesfarne would also, if that was even its consequence, promote Deira over Bernicia, which seems unlikely to be expedient to this Bernician-based monarchy. That aside, it needs sourced at least because it smells like OR. :) Like I said though, well done. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Deacon, thanks for the kind words. Your wording is better regarding territory, but I think that it still might specifically mention the Firth of Clyde, since Northumbria ruled the area south of it for a while ... how about "between the Humber and the Firths of Clyde and Forth", or similar? But there's no great preference here either way.

Oswiu chose the Roman way at Whitby in 664, and he died in 670; thereafter there was a steady erosion of Iona-based clerics in Northumbrian territory, quite noticeable by Pehthelm's consecration in the 8th century ... have a look at the Skene reference I cite, which suggests that both Picts and Northumbrians were working in concert in the early 8th century towards the Roman way in preference to the Columban way.

It looks like a political process, constant and steady, but not a sudden, forcible ouster ... the end result was indeed a facilitation of Northumbrian hegemony. Northumbria's fortunes were up-and-down in the 7th century regarding its southern neighbors, particularly Mercia, and that is not to suggest that anyone chose Deiran preferences over Bernician ones. I'm aware of the substantial history of Iona-based clerics in Bernicia, but times change (and sometimes political entities do things for expedient reasons).

The translation of Pehthelm's name without stated authority is indeed sourced ... the claim is made flat-out, so have a look at the reference cited; I tried to make sure that anyone who likes to check out references can do so easily ... indeed, you should be able to quickly access every citation that I made in the article. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:S-ecc

Template:S-ecc 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. Bazj (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Heathored

You seem to have a lot of confidence about Heathored not ever having been bishop of Whithorn, despite evidence (ignoring even the countless modern writings that list him as such). Can you explain where this confidence comes from? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Deacon, we seem to be bouncing our conversations around the 'pedia ... as the article says (and check also the references for the Beadwulf article; I checked others, as well) ... and in the Heathored article, on a more heuristic line, it's noted that bishops elsewhere are all noticed by the chroniclers, well into the 9th century. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:S-awards

Template:S-awards 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. Bazj (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

River Mersey

I've reverted your edit to the article, on the basis that I think the map (as well as being unreferenced) is based on an out-of-date and wrong theory. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts here. Thanks Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my point (and on Cardigan Bay, below). It's fascinating to have the Ashton book online - I'll read it with interest, and my own view is that it could be worth mentioning in the article, with a fuller explanation of more recent theories of the Mersey's evolution. I'd also like to hold on to the Cardigan Bay map in the article on the "lost land", Cantre'r Gwaelod, with a similar explanation. So far as referencing is concerned, my reading of WP:CITE is that uncontentious maps can be referenced on the image page only, but those that are likely to be contentious would need to be referenced and explained in the article itself. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd be very interested in seeing any more recent scholarly analysis of the supposed remains, sandbanks etc., both in Liverpool Bay (eg off Meols) and Cardigan Bay. I've no doubt that there was at one time human occupation of areas which are now submerged off the English and Welsh coasts, but whether it was within historic times, or alternatively several millennia ago, is another matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cardigan Bay

Ditto re the maps of Cardigan Bay, which I assume come from the same source. In those cases I don't have evidence myself, so I've simply tagged them {{dubious}} - in any event, they also need clear referencing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cynddylan

Thanks for your help with this. It's greatly improved. Doug Weller (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

St. Brides Netherwent

Oops! Thanks... Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Tewdrig

Excellent work, though if you don't mind I'd rather get rid of the bold names as contrary to WP:MOS. Any chance you could look at Glywysing and Kingdom of Gwent some time, which are in a dire state? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. The guidance on using bold text is here - don't worry though, there are lots of little formating quirks that you'll pick up over time (or other editors will point out to you!). So far as Glywysing, Gwent and the others are concerned, the only advice I can give is not necessarily to try and get everything perfect at once - start by cutting out the errors in the existing text, add references where the existing text is correct, improve the overall structure if necessary, and then develop the article over time. I only mentioned those ones because I would very much like to see them improved, but am hesitant myself to step in because I have no specialist expertise in the history of those areas or that period, and I'm not qualified to judge what is regarded as a reliable as against unreliable source. Regarding the maps, have you thought of making them available at this project? I haven't looked into precisely what maps are used there or why, but I'm sure there are people there who would welcome any improvements you can suggest. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of detailed questions re Tewdrig's death. Firstly, you state that the battle was at the ford where he was a hermit. My reading (and I can dig out sources if necessary) suggests that he was a hermit at Tintern, where there was a ford over the Wye, but that the battle itself was at a place called Pont y Saeson which was a mile or two away from the Wye itself, where the old Roman road between Venta (Caerwent) and Blestium (Monmouth) crossed the Angiddy, a tributary stream of the Wye - as shown here, and now called Tintern Cross. If so, I can put in a better photo from Geograph. The second point is that, although I've also read that the name Merthyr Tewdrig "evolved into the name Mathern", that seems to me less likely than the idea that the place first became known as Mateyrn, apparently meaning "place of a king", hence Mathern. Any thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll come back to the Tintern question another day, but basically there seem to be three places mentioned as possible battle sites - a ford of the Wye at Tintern (which does seem to derive from din + deyrn - the rocks of the king); another ford of the Wye about 1 mile upstream at Brockweir (apparently from the name Brochmael (Tewdrig's grandson?)); and the crossing of the Angiddy at Pont y Saeson. I'm not sure what you mean by "the now-long-gone abbey" - Tintern Abbey wasn't founded until 1131, and I'm not aware of any predecessor foundation in the area. So far as Mathern is concerned, both this source - academically respectable I hope - and the book A History of the Parish of Mathern by E. T. Davies refer to the original name of Mathern as Merthyr Tewdric but that being superseded around the 13th century by Ma + teyrn, "place of a king". So maybe I'll change that bit now, and mull over the confusion over the battle site. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunoding

Great job with the map posted to Dunoding and elsewhere. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 03:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Maps

I think the maps you've added at Glywysing and Ergyng look good - personally I think it's more realistic to have maps with no supposedly-clear boundaries on them, as you've done. Just a couple of points: I wonder if a reference to Lloyd should be made in the caption itself, rather than just from clicking on the map? Is Lloyd's research still regarded as reliable, given that it is 100 years old? Can an approximate date be put on the maps - 450? 500? 600? etc.? And finally, what if anything is the significance of the red names as against the black ones? I look forward to seeing what others think - but great work anyway! Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I wonder if it would be considered contentious to replace some of the existing maps with colored kingdoms and specific borders with maps more like these? At any rate, I also prefer maps without specific borders (almost all of which are speculative and misleading); and I think some recognition of topology needs to be present, if only as a lightly shaded nuance, else kingdoms tend to be drawn across hard-to-cross rivers and across mountain peaks and across moorlands, when these are more likely to have been the actual borders (which, by the way, were not anciently hyper-specified, as is the case today).

• I put up 3 maps (Image:Wales.pre-Roman.jpg, Image:Wales.post-Roman.jpg, Image:Wales.medieval.jpg) and a navbar ({{Welsh kingdoms}}) - criticisms, improvements, suggestions, and especially corrections are welcome (I'll hope to alter the maps in "batch mode", rather than one-thing-at-a-time, for the sake of my sanity). The maps should have better labelling (eg, islands) so long as it doesn't clutter the image to distraction.
• Red names are historically significant "regions" (I don't think I caught them all), black names are kingdoms/subkingdoms/possible kingdoms, and the like. It's arbitrary at present (and subject to improvement!). This is reflected in the namings in the navbar. Lloyd seems a good starting point; if he has been superceded or shown to be incorrect, I would prefer the most correct up-to-date information (I tend to prefer the older references when modern ones simply repeat what has already been said). And perhaps Lloyd should be cited in the article as the source of the map information.
• I also would like the evolutionary process to result in the display of specific times (AD 400, AD 450, etc.) and eras (Rise of Gwynedd, Creation of Deheubarth, etc.) – that seems intrinsic to the understanding of history; let's hope for that in the fullness of time. A big warning here is that that requires good research to get it right (ie, it's work, and sometimes tedious, especially as the times and eras become more specific).
• Can you lay out a good "History of Gwent", based on your own good research using reliable sources – its regions, travails, good times, relations with the Saxons on one side and Glywysing/Morgannwg/Glamorgan on the other, covering ancient times to modern? And can you convey that information such that the reader is clear as to locations? If so, a map is easy (kind of time-consuming, it's in the nature of the beast), but a large map of the region would then help illustrate the article and facilitate the reader's understanding. That might then be used as a template to put up good quality articles on other areas. And for that purpose, one area is as good as another, within limits ... eg, perhaps start with a smaller task, say Ewyas (probably a better starting point).

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Notuncurious, and thanks for your work on the maps and kingdoms navbar. They look good but I have a few points I'd like to raise based on a first perusal.

The pre-Roman map could perhaps do with shifting the Ordovices slightly to the northwest (follow the curve!) and noting the Cornovii on the border (roughly Shropshire) as they may be related to the early history of Powys (to what extent their territory extended into modern Wales is debatable). Minor quibbles!

The medieval map is far more problematic. Some of the difficulties are probably unsolvable without having a series of maps for different periods (as it is, the map inevitably has a number of anachronisms). South-east Wales is especially difficult, and I'll leave that for now to have time to mull it over. There are several problems with Powys, on the map and on the navbox. Firstly I'm not sure what you mean by having "Powys (Pengwern • Mathafarn)" on the navbox. This seems to imply that they were subkingdoms of Powys, but Mathafarn is the site of the court of medieval Powys and the exact nature of Pengwern - court/capital or sub-kingdom - is debatable (conservatively, and probably with good reason, it is usually regarded as the site of the first court of Powys, which was later established at Mathafarn when the eastern parts were lost in the early middle ages). Pengwern is also clearly shown as a (sub-?)kingdom of on the map. I think this needs amending as it's misleading (see the article). I think Powys should be given greater prominence as it looks rather smaller than it was; also, "Vadoc" (very antiquated) should be changed to "Fadog" (Powys Fadog).

Just some preliminary points, I'll get back when I've had time to digest the rest. They look good though, and I agree that it's a wise idea not to try and show detailed boundaries (an impossible task on a general map anyway). Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it, will wait awhile for further info, then update. Thanks much. Looking forward to more comments. By the way, I keenly miss access to some of the better modern sources, such as Wendy Davies works. Local libraries don't carry them, and their purchase price is exceedingly steep over here.

Re my use of old (eg, Vadoc) or incorrect forms - please be persistent whenever you see it, and my apologies in advance for future occurrances and for the tedium with which you must correct such things.

On a related subject - I prefer "local spellings" in general, which argues for things like "Erging" rather than "Ergyng" modernly (I'm not sure how some might like it, though); but I could use some guidance in displaying old/new names on maps of ancient history (eg, Morganwg/Morgannwg); and should modern spellings (Welsh/English/otherwise) be used on ancient history maps, when the historical spelling is different? Also, shouldn't the correct local names for ancient peoples be somewhere on the maps (eg, Silures is perhaps a Roman approximation to the proper name)?

Re possibly misleading display of kingdoms/subkingdoms/regions/etc - I took a pass at it for the sake of getting a first effort out there; will try to resolve it in any case, but input/solutions/etc from others is very welcome.

Re "territory rearrangements" on the death of a king - I don't think this is as bad as it may seem; yes, there is rearrangement, but it isn't arbitrary, and "coherent entities" tend to remain (though with a different ruler); that is, cantref "X" gets passed around over the course of generations, but cantref "X" itself tends to remain in existence over time, so its historical condition is not necessarily unknown. It does take some time to track down all the details, though.

Re inaccuracies due to overbroad timespans for the map (esp., eg, the medieval map) - I also think we may be best served by having a series of maps ... I hope for that for the future. (on the "post-Roman" map, I actually looked up all those people and locations, then cross-checked it against a topographical map; a bit time consuming ... that has to be done for each of the maps, I think).

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

William Reeves (bishop)

I have just started this. I thought you might be able to improve on it. Strawless (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Common law

The addition to "common law" is interesting as English history, but doesnt really relate to the history of "common law." Can you either sharpen it up (e.g, tighten up the relationship of law made by judges to other law, or otherwise tie it to "common law"), else I'm inclined to agree with you that it's bloat. Interesting bloat for the NotUnCurious, but bloat nonetheless! Boundlessly (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Boundlessly, thanks for checking the material and the response. I agree with your concern, and would support your removal of it on those grounds (you'll also want to remove the reference upon which it is based, by Stubbs). I doubt that the material can be tightened to the advantage of the article section – it is already too long and tries to cover an area too large for a section in an article not dedicated to the topic.

The material I inserted belongs elsewhere, but the appropriate place doesn't yet exist. Its tie to common law is as background to the Tractatus of Glanvill, which is within the realm of English common law (a book of authority there, and I think rightfully so).

There is not yet an article "History of English law" with supporting articles such as "History of English common law", nor other relevant articles ... I have lists of significant documents and analyses and other such, but don't have time and knowledge to do justice to the subjects. I certainly hope to see a full and informative series of articles before I die, whoever contributes them.

Hey, at least I added a reference to an article section tagged as needing them!

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm ... maybe I can ask a favour then

I'm working on article Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick. I'm going to do some maps of Carrick, if I upload these can you convert them with your expensive software to something more professional? :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, things Scottish are of interest to me anyway, particularly history, where I enjoy being in danger of learning something new. Let me know how to get to it and what you have in mind, and we can go over the trivial details when you're ready. (it was only expensive software for those who couldn't get academic pricing, and even then it was back when a dollar was actually worth fifty cents ;-). Wow, big article with lots of research-based information ... will be interested to read up on it. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the version I completed ... File:Medieval carrick.jpg. It's a tad messy and cluttered, but most of the geographic detail (following places mentioned in the article) is there, I think. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't foresee any problems; it may be a couple of days, while I tie off some loose strings of my own. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of questions:

1. ? put a date on map title, such as "c. 1150 - c 1250", "12th - 13th century", or something else

2. need a clarification, name and placement:

2a. "Innertig" perhaps, not "Invertig" nor "Kirkcudbright-Invertig" ... see the relevant act of 28 jun 1617 ... pre-Reformation church was at Innertig; Kirkcudbright-Innertig parish was created by the act; also, while K-I was at Ballantrae, the parliamentary act implies that Innertig was not (so perhaps, a tweak to the article text is also needed and maybe/maybe not cite the Scots or English version of the act itself)

2b. This parish website provides useful info that might be checked out further, if desired ... Innertig, not Invertig ... Ballantrae is on the Tig where it meets the Stinchar, and Innertig is 1 1/2 miles inland from there; perhaps the spelling Invertig is a typo or mistranscription.

2c. Location perhaps NE of Ballantrae; Ballantrae is N of the Stinchar; if Innertig were E of Ballantrae, it would be across the Stinchar from Ballantrae, and the description would say so rather than saying "inland" from Ballantrae; but I'm just guessing here ... maybe a Gazeteer or something else would have credible info, if it matters.

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Gee, reading over this after awhile, it sounds like a challenge of sorts, which it shouldn't have sounded like; it's not my intellectual product and contribution, after all ... let me rephrase, in the interests of keeping majorly out of the loop, with anecdotal exceptions: what's your take on a date and the parish church name at/near Ballantrae? Regards and sorry if the actual intent was not what was actually sent, Notuncurious (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Cheers for this. Missed it last night actually. Kirkcudbright-Invertig is the name given for it in the Atlas of Scottish History to 1707 (very worth getting btw!). Cowan, Parishes, spells it, as apparently does everyone else. I'd assume the author of the Atlas map was "correcting" the spelling (i.e. Inner, as it usually does, represents inbher "mouth", thus "mouth of the Tig"; living places names with this element are almos always today spelled Inver-, Inverness, Invergordon, and so on). Innertig is the church of Ballantrae, and the parish was later renamed Ballantrae. It might be an alternative just to get rid of the red dot and put Ballantrae in brackets. Likewise, Kirkoswald is the church of Turnberry. I just followed the locations of the Atlas, using the Roy Map occasionally for detail. Re title, I'd say "Carrick, 13th- to 14th- centuries" or something along those lines (e.g. "Carrick in the thirteenth[ and fourteenth century]"). Cheers for the comments. No challenge would have been taken btw. All the best,Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Very glad to hear it, thanks. Have a look, and pick either File:Carrick.Medieval.13th.century.png or File:Carrick.Medieval.13th.century.topo.png; they're both consistent with the article text (using Inner rather than Inver); let me know what you think, and how you might want to revise it ... note that the topo version is more informative, but distracts a bit from the information that you're trying to display, and that on a map this small with topo shown (including textured mono), a 2-mile error would be very noticeable, so care taken for placement (Girvan S of its river, Ballantrae N of its river, location of Glen App, etc). I would likely go with the 1617 parliamentary act & Ballantrae parish website and alter the article, with map showing both Ballantrae and Innertig (they are about 1 1/2 miles apart) rather than Kirkcudbright-Innertig, but then I'm not the one who spent a lot of good time on research and writing to produce what looks like a very fine article.

Roy's maps are top-of-the-line (but beware of his history effort); wish I could get a copy of the Atlas (I got not further than seeing the Amazon price of $265.84). Suspected initially that Inner should have been Inver, but this is tempered by the knowledge there were a lot of spelling changes for various reasons and also that OPR's and similar such demonstrate that spelling was indeed the subject of artistic creativity. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent map!!! Prefer the topo. :) A few points, all minor:

• 1) Need Ballantrae back on the map. Kirkcudbright-Innertig is "the church of Cuthbert at the mouth of the Tig", it's dabbed like that because of Kirkcudbright in Galloway. I.e. Kirkudbright and Innertig are not two different places I don't believe.
• 2) Watch Dalquharran. I think (guessing from the name and the Atlas) the medieval location is significantly further west than the modern village of Dailly, i.e. Old Dailly not Dailly. [1]
• 3) Image would benefit from being sharpened, though don't know if that's possible. It's only a minor point. It looks like its under a few mm of water, though it's perfectly acceptable and readable.

That price is scandalous. The RRP is 30 pounds, and you get it in a few book stores. You can also buy it in UK amazon for 20 [2][3]

Thanks again for the work!!! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, and topo it is. Check it out and let me know if we need anything more: the same file updated, File:Carrick.Medieval.13th.century.topo.png

• Ballantrae is back, where it always should have been. And at long last I see your point about Kirkcudbright-Innertig.
• Dalquaharran should be where it belongs now. Not sure what I was thinking, as the article clearly said Old Dailly, not Dailly; don't know why I did it incorrectly. Thanks, good catch.
• Unfortunately, the image is at the limit of its resolution, and the artwork (title, names, symbols) is affected by enlarging a small section of the map and then smoothing the result. I know what to do to circumvent this, but don't know if it's possible with this software, and if so, how to do it (would certainly like to know, though). The artwork is infinitely scalable without loss, but before printing it, it is overlaid on an image where pixel resolution is a computer memory constraint, and smoothing that image is what causes that "underwater" effect.

Btw, check the "description" I uploaded with the image ... I was going to identify the unnamed wikipedian, which would be proper attribution, but didn't know if you had an opinion. If you prefer to omit it, I will; else would likely identify all the sources of the map (including the Atlas, if appropriate). Will now see if I can get that book without losing an arm and a leg in the process. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

PS - for a comparison of the effects of enlarging a small area on resolution, notice how the artwork is nice and crisp on THIS image ... artwork originally done at the same scale as was used on the Carrick image, but wasn't enlarged as much as the Carick image. (And please, pay no attention to the quality of the information on the image; I plan to revise it in the course of time :-) Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Underwater effect is gone, at some small cost in the title box, but I think this is better. Simply updated the image, so it's still the same file name. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's fantastic. No need for any more work I don't think; only one petty thing would be that in future you might wanna use an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) -- it's very petty as no-one will notice. I take it you bought that book then? :) Cause it's gone now! For wikipedia, that Atlas in the hands of a wikipedian with the approprate enthusiasm, software and skills will be great. There's so much material there! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great. But I often think of other things after a while, so if something comes to you, go ahead and mention it, even after a while. I thought to use the n-dash, –, but knew that I couldn't because the text is all in pre-canned fonts (eg, Helvetica, Courier, etc), and I didn't want to hack in an inkline (probably should have, in hindsight).

I took a break and came back an hour later, logged onto the site, and it was gone ... probably a conspiracy of some sort ... *sigh* I signed up for notification for when it will be available again. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed the Carrick map needs one more place: Greenan[4]. Is this still possible to add, or is it too late and too clustered? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not too late to add it ... recall that I said earlier that there are always (at least, almost always) things that one thinks of afterward (not unlike the text in an article); avoiding numerous small changes is desirable, but getting it right and making it usefully informative have high priority. Generally it is best to wait awhile to see if there are other things, then mention them all once, for the sake of sanity. However, you would be hard-pressed to find room on this map for anything else, so I'll go ahead and add Greenan shortly. Nevertheless, if you do think of anything else, however unforeseeable, even if its a new line of thought, do bring it up for discussion, and don't live with something inferior as a default. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the article, the image has been updated to include Greenan. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I see now! Great! The map is really good now, I don't think we should mess with it any more in terms of detail. You might wanna though get rid of "Medieval" in the top; I just noticed how unnecessary this is now that 13th century is there. Thanks so much for making this map decent. Much appreciated! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! (and I didn't notice the redundancy of "Medieval" until you mentioned it ... perhaps, let it sit awhile, and if I don't get back to it in reasonable time, give me a nudge) Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nudge! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm way ahead of you, Deacon. I take it that you haven't noticed that message I added a few days ago to our conversation on your talk page (and don't forget to notice the spiffy "–" in the title) :-D Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Cheers. Missed that. This is good. I think without a lot of work it would be hard to do the A-N settlement part well. I think you prolly ought to change all the province names to black, get rid of the pink dots (it works for the British yellows though) in Clydesdale (they'd have to be in too many other regions too). Optionally, put some pink dots in Strathgryfe, Kyle and Cun. (representing English settlement). At that stage the map will be usable in the article, superior to the one there by a distance, so you should upload over the current file in the article or another usable name, and we can make use of it. Thanks again! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the article, as you suggested. Have a look and see what you think. Further mods still possible, if something comes to you. The file is File:Scotland.south.c1200.regions.languages.jpg. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Don't see much reason to change that, though 1) it's tough to tell the difference in colour between English and English settlement and 2) maybe Clydesdale could have a thicker concertration of English dots (though not too much thicker). This is a very useful map, and I can see uses for it (unaltered) in other articles. Thank you very much! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, glad this will be useful. Maps definitely complement history articles, but finding one that is both accurate and covers the topic at hand is a difficult combination.

The map might also have been a little lighter ... it's fine full-size, but appears darker when shrunk to article size. With dots that small, about all anyone can see is contrast (tried other colors, but not enough contrast with the background, and larger dots overwhelm the background color). I'll eventually get back to a (little bit only) thicker settlement in Clydesdale ... regions of dot patterns are not a problem. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this pdf could be helpful for the maps The Northumbrian settlements in Galloway and Carrick: an historical assessment.--Celtus (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Clydesdale

Here is a map that may be of interest to you: on google books. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip ... they've blanked out the page at the moment (google does that to a group of pages after someone scrolls through them, but I'll be on the lookout for it).

I've just updated the map File:Scotland.south.c1200.regions.languages.jpg used in the article Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick, to thicken the English settlement in Clydesdale; also a legend change to denote English settlement in both Gaelic and English speaking areas (there's no wikipedia history change since the update was on Commons) ... have a look, comments welcome. I can revert the change on Commons if you prefer the previous map.

Am currently reading up on the Gall-Gadhil (my own interest, and it will take a bit of time), and part of it will result in a map which may be of interest (will include the labeling that you used on your map in the article on Donnchadh) ... will let you know when it's ready and see if you have comments/improvements. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Northeast.Irish.Sea.Norse.placenames.jpg

I'm not sure it is useful to break down Norse place-names like that. Well, I'm not sure either that I understand what code of the map is. Just as a preliminary note, a lot of historians have argued that names in -by are actually not evidence of Norse settlement at all, but of English settlement post-dating the time when that element was incorporated into northern English. Just as an example, in Annandale, Eskdale and Cumbria, the element is sometimes combined with forenames of Norman settlers. Distinguishing Norse from English names carries some of the same problems you get distinguishing Gaelic and Welsh names, each pair of languages being so similar (converging perhaps into one after prolonged contact) that it can be impossible to make diagnosis. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and assessing. I think the map might become a supporting item, but not for a main thrust. This particular map was a byproduct of looking for Norse & Gall-Gaelic occupation, not an objective; I found them in Galloway, not surprisingly, but found refutation of their presence in Cumbria and Dumfriesshire (ie, evidence of absence), and found evidence of peaceful Norse settlement there, but not much Danish. English influence is throughout.

Yes, ON and OE were close and so were cultures; and no, -by and several other markers are not too useful, but -beck and several others are useful. The language analysis isn't mine, but seemed solid without overreaching, and without the "authoritative speculation" that is common to the topic.

Parenthetical ... Evans' and Rhys' 1887 Welsh-language edition of Red Book of Hergest (late 14th century) spells the names nynnyau and pheibau here. Post-Ailred and (I think) modern Welsh, but at least the source pre-dates Iolo MSS and its descendant references. Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The Content Creativity Barnstar

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		Overdue acknowledgment of the labour and work you've put into Wikipedia, on articles and images. Keep it up as long as you can! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Deacon. I'll try to live up to them. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Merfyn Frych

My compliments for your expansion and improvement of this article, excellent work. It is a bit depressing though that Merfyns "primary notability is as the father of Rhodri the Great", considering that this article is in much better shape now than the article about Rhodri... (this is an attempt to nudge you into improving that article as well :). Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Finn, thanks for the kind words. I've been aiming at some of the less well known people first but intend to get to the "big names" in due course, unless someone beats me to it. And I also am a bit unsettled by my choice of language in describing Merfyn's primary notability ... I think that I should be able to find something more complimentary to say about him, so perhaps some further research is in order. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rambling on a bit about sources, following the discussion at talk:Merfyn Frych: One of the fascinating thing with medieval sources is that even when the historicity of the account is unreliable they have a lot to tell about history. Like the example with ByT and Merfyn Frych - the unreliability of ByT makes it impossible to use it to verify that MF was killed by the saxons or that he was "king of the Britons". But, the fact that the annal makes these two statements shows that someone at some point felt that it was important that this should be the recorded history - I presume that for example both MF being killed by an external enemy and being a kind of Welsh overking could add weight to later claims of (over)kingship from his descendants, and as such shed more light on when and where (that part of) ByT was written than on who Merfyn really was. But then of course, interpreting the source in this way is the in Wikipedia dreaded Original Research :). Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Cantrefi.Medieval.Wales.jpg

Hi again, sorry to bother you but I tried to make a version of this map for Wikipedia in Norwegian, and being clumsier than most with editing jpg/png I wasn't very succesful (ugly letters and adding a lot of "noise" to the map). So I'd like to ask if you could help me out here, I just want the text in the "label"-box altered - it should read "Middelalderens Cantrefi i Wales. Basert på Lloyds History of Wales, Vol. I og Kochs Celtic Culture" (Mark "Loyds" and "Kochs" without the 's for Norwegian genitive). If it's too much trouble I'll get somebody else to do this :). Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Finn, try this one: File:Cantrefi.Medieval.Wales-no.jpg, and good luck. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a millon, just what I wanted [5] (now I just have to write an article in Norwegian explaining what a cantref is :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Coel

Thanks for your comment at Talk:King Cole, Notuncurious. I can't believe something that trifling and self-evident became such an issue. Seems some people won't let mere evidence challenge the authority of conventional wisdom.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, you were no more than in the right. I had a similar (and bothersome) experience with this editor at Talk:Sub-Roman Britain, where this kind of conventional wisdom was at play, with anyone disagreeing being subject to personal attacks ... at least you weren't called a bunch of bad names (and hey!! I notice that you actually received permission to be in the right). Ah well, back to my current task at-hand. I notice that you haven't yet had time to try to improve on the perfection inherent in my recent improvements to Cadfan ap Iago, Cadafael Cadomedd ap Cynfeddw, and a few others (probably because you don't know about them yet :-). Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reqmap

Sorry about this. It was my error, the map is quite sufficient, as your maps always are. I had placed a map req at Talk:River Wye in the hopes that we could get one there. For whatever reason, we seem to always get maps for even extinct lands, but we're much more lacking with bodies of water.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. I've seen a number of requests for maps regarding geography, and have toyed with putting several of them up, but haven't found the time and inclination yet. Mostly, I have the maps already made and annotated, with just a few more details left to go ... I'll get there eventually, though. For the time being I seem to be interested in spend time and effort researching other areas, such as history. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Déisi, Laigin, and?

Hi. That's a beautiful map, and I'm glad you added it because I needed to begin expanding that section. But what about the Uí Liatháin? Surely some of those circles belong to them. The Deirgtine, the ancestors of the Eóganachta, are believed to have been active in Britain too. Perhaps South Irish Settlement in Britain would be a better title? DinDraithou (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello DinDraithou, nice to speak with you again, and thanks for the kind words! South Irish Settlement in Britain does sound like a better title. For the map, I was trying to keep to what I could verify (eg, Eochaid's arrival c. 270, the move into Brycheiniog c. 450, the move into Cornwall c. 450), and haven't yet tracked down the 'large scale' arrival in N. Wales, so the arrows from 'Laigin' aren't dated (I don't yet know whether it was c. 270 or later, in the time of the Uí Liatháin ... the Llŷn Peninsula and Porthdinllaen preserve the name 'Laigin', but I suppose that could be a consequence of some later 'large scale' Uí Liatháin arrival). I also suspect 'large scale' arrival in Cornwall, perhaps also from Ireland, rather than only a move from S. Wales, but haven't come across the reliable verification of that yet, either.

Would be happy to update the map based on good info, which I'm happy to either track down or be pointed in the right direction (clues welcome!) ... by the way, I haven't yet got all the particulars amassed for a good map showing more of Ireland ... if you click the map to enlarge, note that all the rivers are present in Britain, but none in Ireland; similarly for a considerable quantity of annotation, such as locations of inscribed stones.

Please feel no obligation to answer, but I'll throw these out nevertheless: do you think that the Uí Liatháin (or Laigin) settlement can be reasonably dated? ... any particulars of when and where into Britain regarding the Deirgtine? ... any clues re a direct settlement in Cornwall? And of course, any and all error notations gratefully received! Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Forgive possible presumption, but I have attempted to bring some clarity to the page "Déisi", in particular to clarify what "the Déisi" were and were not in this context and period, and the dating of their "migration". The new text currently conflicts somewhat with your map (and it really is an beautiful map!). I'd welcome your and DinDraithou's input. Could you take a look at the revisions and comment here or "Déisi" Talk. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.160.179 (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Notuncurious. Yes I get a little carried away, and also have this habit of doing too much of my dailing typing while having my considerable nightcap. From a previous existence I have a respectable collection of Arthuriana which may occasionally affect my judgement too. I've now reread your requests and am back on track.

To that peninsula. I have confidence in Ó Corráin, who repeats in his long 2001 article "Prehistoric and Early Christian Ireland" in The Oxford Illustrated History of Ireland (ed. Foster) that the Laigin did in fact give their name to it. But I will point out that the similar Lyons (surname) has as many as four origins, two of them Gaelic, Ó Liatháin and Laigin used as surnames, and two Gaulish-derived place names. In each case the medial consonants disappeared. I've never seen an entry going from Laigin to Llŷn but I'm sure there is one somewhere and I am interested to find something. I wish I knew more about Welsh. Do you know how Llŷn is pronounced? The article says that Lleyn is an inaccurate anglicization. Liatháin, originally Létháin, had a long vowel there. Plus there is an Irish ogam CALUNOVICA MAQI MUCOI LITENI, in this form an early kind of surname. DinDraithou (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, people who clear the mists with a considerable nightcap ... 'tis a comfort here, to know that one is amongst one's own kind.

I've seen the assertions of etymological Laigin -> Llŷn, but never accompanied by a 'smoking gun' of evidence or compelling reasoning ... your comments are probably best: that it's plausible but that there are too many possible linguistic variations to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt (and let's not forget the possible permutations available from bilingual Welsh/Irish development into 'Welrish/Irelsh'). I don't speak Welsh and cannot ask locally, as (sadly) that generation is now gone. Pending something reliable to support the 'intuitively obvious' connection between Laigin and the settlement of Llŷn (and the 'obviously connected' site of Porthdinllaen), a bit of weasel-wording is probably the best course for now. Again, thanks for following up on this, it has been usefully informative. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Irish people

I've added another line at the bottom and two more very good sources to Irish people. The one from 2005 I should have added in the first place; the one from 2007 I found here at Wikipedia. It appears in a book surprisingly, which is why it got missed for a year to two.

Thankfully other editors have taken over making the section readable, but some of the focus still needs to come off Oppenheimer and Sykes on to other older studies making the false Basque connection. At least I will do that in the new article. The result of their being added everywhere (I feel sorry for Sykes) is that they will take most of the blame for a while. Writing popular works was unwise. DinDraithou (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the articles being updated are on my watchlist, so I've been following progress. Good to see the topic being treated with a more rigorous grounding, with less of a pop-history perspective. Also have noted that opposition has been much attenuated of late, as people catch on to where you're going and other like-minded editors have joined in. Don't feel too sorry for Sykes yet; a commercially successful book and a few tv "history" shows about his theories have happened, so putting his work in proper perspective may only mean that he's crying all the way to the bank. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Selgovae/Trimontium

Hello Notuncurious. I've been admiring your excellent maps of Ptolemy's southern Scotland and have a question. For reasons explained, you have placed Trimontium just north of the Solway Firth (and not at conventional Newstead/Eildon Hills) - I'm interested in knowing what site in Dumfries and Galloway is represented (is this Burnswark/Birrenswalk Hill?). And are you arguing that Newstead/Eildon Hills was not called Trimontium at all or was another Trimontium, i.e. there were two places of this name in southern Scotland? Regards Hobby Horser (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Hobby Horser, thanks for the kind words on the maps. The actual locations of all of the "towns" named by Ptolemy are unknown. Speculations abound, but I doubt any will be definitively identified ... there are too many candidates and a single ancient reference doesn't provide enough information. Birrenswark is a popular candidate, but not the only one. I tried to avoid promoting one selection over another (enlarge the map and note the legend's disclaimer that locations are speculative).

There does seem to be 2 places named Trimontium: the one at Eildon Hills (Latin tri/3, mont/hill), and the one named by Ptolemy, spelled phonetically (Britonnic trev/town, mynnyd/hill), according to John Rhys et al.

The "conventional" placement of 'Trimontium of the Selgovae' at Eildon has a strange history. No one doubted that it was somewhere along Scotland's southern coast until William Roy placed it at Eildon Hills ... he was trying to follow an Itinerary given in the 1757 De Situ Britanniae, and moving Ptolemy's Trimontium made the Itinerary route seem more logical, according to Roy's 1793 book. Roy did not move the Selgovae from Ptolemy's placement of them. When De Situ and its itineraries were proven to be a fraud and fiction in 1845, Roy's misguided placement was kept, but people quit citing him as the original source. Then someone moved the Selgovae to be near the town, and now we have the monstrosity that the only legitimate source (Ptolemy) is discarded in favor of a fiction presented as legitimate history. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I agree that the historiography of "Trimontium of the Selgovae" is highly problematic, and that there has been some degree of academic inertia or complacency here. But are not "monstrosity" and "fiction" etc. overly harsh terms? Scholars have simply tried to make sense of Ptolemy's Geographia, an intrinsically challenging source with many internal contradictions and a tortuous manuscript tradition. The "Trimontium of the Selgovae" - Eildons equation, whatever its origins, does have its attractions (arguably more so than postulating two "Trimontia" in southern Scotland, whatever their posited etymologies). Hence the long-term general acceptance of this thesis. Perhaps the biggest obstacle, as you suggest, is the physical geography, but is it really so outlandish that the same tribe or tribal grouping might have occupied the closely adjacent basins of the Annan, Tweed and Teviot? There are parallels elsewhere in Ptolemy's work, even within the Scottish section - e.g. no amount of academic ingenuity has provided a compelling explanation as to why the Vacomagi appear to dwell both sides of the Mounth, historically a greater barrier than the Southern Uplands. Nor can we exclude the possibility that Ptolemy simply misplaced "Trimontium" (=Eildons) among the Selgovae - again, an error found elsewhere in his work. In any case, I agree with you that this is largely an erudite guessing-game, but I would suggest that modern scholarship is far more aware of the difficulties posed by the evidence than the current text of the article allows and that some modern (20th-century) discussions should be referenced, e.g. Richmond; Mann & Breeze; Barrow; and Strang (who has gone some way to correcting the 90 degree dislocation of Scotland in Ptolemy's map, with implications for named sites). Mere suggestions. BTW: are you using a special program to create your maps? - they really are models of clarity. Regards, Hobby Horser (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! We have some overlap in reading lists. I've read all of those you mention, and a number of others as well. Richmond addresses the topic too simplistically, and while Strang tries mightily, technically he merely says "if we do this, we get that, and it looks reasonable to me". The others are offering non-technical discussions and opinions based on assumptions previously made (not useful). There are technical issues here, not only historical ones. Cartography, planiometry, and stereometry are not my fields, but I have some technical background, and I note that anyone can "adjust" Ptolemy into a story of their own making when they take a "convenient subset" of Ptolemy's data and make localized and localizing assumptions that apply only to the area of convenience.

"Monstrosity" may be a bit harsh. I rather like Skene's diplomatic description, where he says that to place Trimontium at Eildon Hills does great violence to Ptolemy's work. I think that there is so little reliable information on this period of Scottish history that some authors feel obliged to "postulate" a readable story that won't be disproven, and it is not done with any intent to deceive. I don't think of that as history (my own take on the matter). I certainly respect their efforts.

I got the software for another purpose, adapting it to better understand history is a separate issue. Couldn't find any good topographical maps combined with history (and topography is absolutely relevant), so got a topo-only map and started adding "infrastructure" (rivers, towns, sites, roads, etc), trying to be rigorously accurate ... mostly I did this so that I would be able to better understand the associated history; putting up the maps is largely a by-product. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. All agreed. The evidence simply does not permit definitive answers. I suggested this selection of studies not by way of endorsement (although I'm inclined to give greater credit to Strang) but to acknowledge that historians/philologists are aware of the problem even if Barry Cunliffe, an archaeologist, is not. My greater concern is that a “Roy was wrong” approach does not do justice to the complexities of the evidence and scholarly hypotheses. If you’ll indulge my further pontificating: We have two premises that must be reconciled:

1. Ptolemy places “Trimontion” among the Selgovae, a tribe whose location and frontiers he does not specify beyond indicating the relative positions of its neighbours: E. of Novantae, S. of Damnonii, N. of Brigantes. These parameters allow for several possibilities. Although I have no objection at all to the thesis, I know of no compelling evidence for locating the Selgovae in Dumfries and Galloway, or indeed in any other locality (I’m more happy to be corrected here).

2. Roy’s identification of the Eildon Hills as "Trimontium" was of course nothing more than guesswork, based primarily on the striking topography of the site. The article (and its map) exposes Roy’s “error”, but appears to miss the point that he was, it seems, actually “right” (albeit via a lucky guess), insofar as later evidence has corroborated the toponym “Trimontium” for Newstead/Eildon Hills (or at least this is the implication of the Ravenna Cosmography and the Ingliston milestone). Indeed, Roy himself now becomes little more than a historical curiosity, superseded by the evidence. (The “De Situ Britanniae” also seems to me to be an irrelevant non sequitur - as Bertram did not argue the Newstead/Trimontium link, how does the exposure of his work as a forgery have any bearing on the matter?).

Logically, this evidence has sustained three principal hypotheses:

1. Ptolemy’s Trimontion is Trimontium/Newstead, and accordingly Selgovae territory, wherever else it lay, included this part of the Tweed basin.

2. Ptolemy’s Trimontion is Trimontium/Newstead, but he misplaced the site among the Selgovae when it in fact belonged to a neighbouring tribe (most probably the Votadini).

3. Ptolemy’s Trimontion is not Trimontium/Newstead; there were two places of the same/similar name in southern Scotland, one somewhere in (unspecified) Selgovae territory, the other belonging to a neighbouring tribe (most probably the Votadini).

All three hypotheses have been proposed in recent (and older) scholarship; all three are possible but none is proven nor, currently, provable (although it is difficult to postulate sensible alternatives to these three models; i.e. one of them is likely to be right). Personally, I find 3 the least likely, both intrinsically and because it requires that Ptolemy knew only one of these “Trimontia” , while, curiously, the Ravenna Cosmographer knew only the other. I have no strong preference for 1 or 2. But of course it is not a question of my view but rather of a neutral presentation of the evidence and its implications. I won’t take up any more your time, but would welcome your thoughts. Regards Hobby Horser (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Hobby Horser, no perception of pontification here and it's not taking up my time, it's a discussion on an area of mutual interest. Indeed, I'll say up-front that there is a possibility that I'm entirely wrong here and that your rationale is the more likely. Reasonable people may disagree from time to time, without prejudice to the past, present, or future.

Yes, I suppose there's always a danger of a "type II error" (excessive scepticism) on someone's part, my own included. I wasn't saying that "Roy was wrong", I was saying that his basis was invalid: he was in fact unknowingly following a ficticious itinerary in De Situ Britanniae and made his conjecture on Trimontium in order to make the (ficticious) itinerary seem more logical and better fit the peoples as described in De Situ Britanniae. If it's of interest, have a look at the relevant pages of his book, pages 115 – 119, where he says exactly that. Also if of interest, have a look at his article, most of which I wrote – to merely say he was qualified and competent is an understatement, and given his qualifications, his placement of Trimontium cannot be called "guesswork"; De Situ is relevant here, as that was the basis (along with Ptolemy) for his conjecture regarding Trimontium.

Part of what bothers me is the adoption of Roy's contribution without attribution, almost as if in pretense that there is some other origin for the conjecture. Roy was certainly more qualified to discuss Ptolemy's map than the other people who have rationalized / postulated alterations of Ptolemy – he was a giant, a seminal contributor to the modern science of surveying, a qualification that is certainly relevant to any discussion of Ptolemy's map. Is it because this would bring De Situ into it? Either way, let's give credit where credit is due, and it is due to Roy. Else, someone please show the lengthy research notes demonstrating that the same conjecture was reached competently and independently. This should not be a problem for a scholar, and it is a reasonable request. I don't mean to suggest evil intent or plagiarism or idea piracy, but to simply say "I think this" on a substantive technical issue, without producing quality citations, quality references, and credible notes?

I suspect that Cunliffe is aware of the background at some level (he attributes his placement of the Selgovae to "various sources", not a comforting citation) ... in a book that comprehensive, there's bound to be an problem or two, and that does not diminish the book's positive value. I didn't see where the Ravenna Cosmography offered any help here (it is open to various interpretations, to say the least, as to what was located where). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Notuncurious, thanks for the response. With some regret, I have decided that Wikipedia is not for me, but the best of luck in developing these and other pages. Hobby Horser (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck to yourself, as well. Perhaps you will mull things over at leisure and come up with a scenario that provides the necessary level of satisfaction. Certainly your contributions would be most welcome and informative, as they have been. I very much hope to see you here again. Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)