Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaul

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Celtic history and culture vs. WikiProject Celts

I am wondering if this WikiProject should be combined with WikiProject Celts. I reactivated this project as I did not know about that, though it seems that one may have had a more active presence in the past. --- FULBERT (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move Suggestion: WikiProject Celtic history and culture > WikiProject Gaulish history and culture

WikiProject Celtic history and culture has been dormant, and actually never appears to have actually started as there is little evidence since it was created that anything ever happened here. There also appears to be a lot of potential overlap between WikiProject Celtic history and culture and WikiProject Celts, with the latter having tagged articles and the former (this current one) not having even been set up.

As such, I propose moving this project to a more specific, unfilled niche where there is a need. As such, I propose moving this Project in order to keep its basic structure and allow for forwarding for anybody who may have searched for it before, into a more narrow focused group of Celts, namely those who were the continental Celtic peoples, the Gauls. To focus this undeveloped WikiProject, I propose moving this WikiProject to: WikiProject Gaulish history and culture.

Thoughts or suggestions will be appreciated. --FULBERT (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved and now will develop this WikiProject with a more focused area to improve and develop. FULBERT (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gaulish history and culture may be too wordy, and think a simplified version of this should simply be: WikiProject:Gaul FULBERT (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in this project

Hi, folks! I was planning to create a Wikiproject on Celtic polytheism to organize editing efforts for articles about Romano-Celtic temples and gods. It looks like this project has already started an effort on one half of that equation, and I've already been working on the other half myself. I'm wondering, is this group still active? Is there any interest in expanding its scope beyond Gaul, per se? Because Romano-Celtic votives and temples like the ones found in Gaul didn't exactly stop at the Gaulish frontier, but rather extend well into Britannia, Germania, etc.

Would love to hear your guys' thoughts! — Uiscefada (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uiscefada, Welcome, and yes our project is still active with a couple of us. When we rejuvenated this project, the focus was on something more specific than Gaul alone, and while the Gaulish peoples shared many things in the Celtic world, things considered Celtic alone somehow made people think immediately of Ireland and perhaps Wales, which is somewhat different than what we are trying here. I am personally very interested in working on the Gaulish polytheisim and religious histories, though would not want that to overlap with the broader Celtic lands, such as Spain or Great Britain, as they are really historically developed in different ways. I think a project on Celtic Polytheism may be really interesting, though perhaps even more a niche than the Celts or Gauls projects. How about working on any of the articles that fit within the deities that Gaulish polytheists would focus on, and then see how it may develop? This may at least be a start, as it seems many of your recent edits focused in these areas covered under our project here. FULBERT (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, Fulbert. I agree that people all-too-often think of Medieval-to-Modern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales when they hear "Celtic", which is not the kind of coverage I'm looking to work on with this particular project.

However, I think there's an equally common mistake where people project modern national identities onto the ancient past with "British" vs. "Gaulish". Dividing development and coverage of articles that way would ultimately be a content "funnel" or "fork". For a few examples of what I mean:

1. There was no British or Gaulish identity originally, but rather a patchwork of tribes that had uneven affinities to one another. A Gaulish identity could be said to emerge later, but only late or after the relevant period.

2. Tribes were not separated between Britain and Gaul. There were some tribes that held territory on both sides of the English Channel, and there was extensive links between Britain and the continent.

3. There was not a separate "British" branch of Celtic languages in this time period yet. Rather, Britons and Gauls were all speakers along a Gallo-British "dialectal continuum".

4. The Romano-Celtic fana of Britain are of an identical type to those found in France and parts of Germany, so there's no reason or benefit to excluding them. Actually, I would go further and say that those must not be treated separately, especially considering how many British temple sites were built at least in part by Gaulish artisans.

5. The same goes for many Celtic cults. Several gods are attested by Roman votives both in Britain and on the Continent, or in multiple different continental regions. Furthermore, the number of those cults exclusive to Britain or other Continental Celtic regions are not numerous or distinct enough to merit a separate project that handles them alone.

One of the key goals of any project is to outline the scope of what needs to be addressed, especially enumerating and categorizing all of the different articles to be edited or created. I think restricting the efforts geographically to "Gaul" in this case (which itself is an ambiguous designation) is arbitrarily limiting and incomplete.

— Uiscefada (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uiscefada, Great; ping me if you decide to start something new and happy to follow along! FULBERT (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fulbert, I just noticed that this project actually does already include articles on goddesses such as Sulis and Brigantia, who are only attested in Britain. So doesn't it seem that you're already encompassing more than just Gaul like I had suggested? Or is there some kind of exception being made only for certain deities and not others? — Uiscefada (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uiscefada, Both of the articles make a direct reference and connection to Gaul, so that is the main connection as I see them within this project. FULBERT (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FULBERT In order for a Wikiproject proposal to be successful, it apparently needs a minimum of 6 active editors from the start. That probably was not the case in 2010 when this one was originally created. So no, there will be no new project that can comprehensively cover Romano-Celtic religion topics, then.

Sulis and Brigantia don't have "direct connections" to Gaul by any means. Sulis' only "connection" is that the artisan who carved the pediment to her temple was probably from Gaul. Brigantia has no link to Gaul in the article, aside from the mistaken mention of a Gaulish "Brigindo" (the citation for which is from 1898, and it's a theory that has been rejected by modern scholars).

So if British deities like them, with no direct connection to Gaul, are outside the remit of this project, they should be dropped from this Wikiproject and we just won't have one that can organize and include this related material from Britannia, Germania, or any other Celtic speaking province outside of the various Galliae.

— Uiscefada (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move of Dīs Pater

There is a proposal at Talk:Dīs Pater#Requested move 30 July 2023 to move an article indicated to be of interest to this project, Dīs Pater to Dis Pater. NebY (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]