Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Celts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Celts (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon Wikipedia:WikiProject Celts is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

A shy goddess: anybody know her?[edit]

I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions as to what to do with the rather beguiling but unforthcoming Iouga (see Talk:Iouga). Tnx. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks to QuartierLatin1968. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aventia[edit]

Hi folks, I had to use that title for a taxonomic redirect. But since the goddess Aventia is linked at List of Celtic deities, you might want to whip up a quick stub to replace the redirect. I have left a disambiguation hatnote in the redirect's source code; it can be used . Some info on the goddess is also found at Avenches (named after her, as was Aventicum). Thanks!

PS: It may be that the scientific name Aventia refers to the goddess too - many moth genera are named after deities. And if so, the subtribe Aventiina also. Back when the scientific name were established, authors did not usually give etymologies - it was presumed that the reader knew his Classical literature well enough to guess the meaning. In any case, the description is here; you might be able to do something with it. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The British Museum wants to give you money and help you write articles![edit]

Yesterday I was lucky enough to attend the Backstage Pass event at the British Museum. It was part of a wider project of engagement with Wikipedia (see WP:GLAM/BM) that has seen them take on a temporary Wikipedian In Residence, User:Witty lama. They see Wikipedia as sharing many of their aims, and they want to encourage involvement by Wikipedians with the museum, and vice versa. They have even offered 5 prizes of £100 at the BM shop for featured articles on BM topics - in any language, Gaelic included.
Most Wikipedians probably don't know that the BM has curators dedicated to answering phone/email questions about their specialist areas, and most of their department libraries welcome visitors doing bona fide research - and they now seem to recognise that editing Wikipedia articles, especially about items in the BM's collections, counts for those purposes. I know that the first question most people will have is "Can we have images of all their stuff?" and I'd just ask people to be patient on that front. Let's just say that the museum are well aware of our hopes there, there are staff who see advantages to the museum in doing something, and it's being discussed at the highest level. On the other hand it's a very complex area that needs to be handled diplomatically. Literally in some cases - foreign governments can get very touchy about the dissemination of images of artifacts relating to their cultural history, and the museum needs to respect those concerns.
So for the moment the focus is on using the BM's huge resources of books, expertise etc to improve article content, and hopefully that will include articles being peer-reviewed by BM staff. Some of them are quite nervous about doing stuff on Wikipedia, a mixture of fear of professional ridicule, nervousness about the technical aspects, stories of rapid reverts of good-faith edits and just general culture shock - it's a very different world to the one they come from. So I'd ask everyone to look after any BM people that you see around the place, Wikipedia can gain a lot from their involvement and it would be a shame if they're discouraged for any reason. As I mentioned above, WP:GLAM/BM is the clearing house for the BM's involvement with Wikipedia, and I suggest that further questions/comments are directed there. Le Deluge (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Tale of Mac Da Thó's Pig[edit]

It's a shame really that we have no featured articles for this WikiProject, and that the general state of the vast majority of some of our most important articles is well below GA status. Take for example Táin Bó Cúailnge, which is of Top importance as Ireland's national epic and easily the most important and well-known piece of Celtic literature, yet which this project only rates as C-class. Compare the featured article on Hrafnkels saga, or any of the dozen featured articles/lists for the Norse Wikiproject.

With this in mind, I created a new article on the medieval Irish satire The Tale of Mac Da Thó's Pig just this past week, which I hope to improve toward FA status and which will hopefully serve as a model for similar articles on Celtic literature. There are after all pieces of Celtic literature which are much more important – such as the Táin, the Mabinogion and The Exile of the Sons of Uisliu (which strangely doesn't even have it's own article) – and whose subjects more greatly deserve to be featured.

Also, if you have any knowledge of the subject or would simply be willing to review the article, feel free! --Grimhelm (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The article has now reached GA status, and has been nominated for peer review for any suggestions to help bring it to FA status. --Grimhelm (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tartessian language[edit]

Would like to add this page in the light of Professor Koch's translations (reviewed by Barry Cunliffe) as a Celtic language. Have added a the project template to the Talk page of this page. Jembana (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Celts[edit]

I was about to start work on creating a skeleton portal for all articles related to Celts, when I found that someone had created a similar portal in Septemper 2008, here, which seems not to have been touched since. I think we could rename that old portal to "Celts", tidy it up and recategorise it to create a focal point for all the Celt-related articles. Thoughts/ideas/suggestions? Gabhala (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Celts articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Celts articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Selcovia[edit]

I have proposed this article for deletion. Comments welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Celts in Transylvania[edit]

Hello from WP:DACIA! We are currently working on the Celts in Transylvania article and would love to collaborate. We need and welcome your input. Best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation help requested[edit]

Does anyone happen to have access to Miranda Green's 2004 book The Gods of the Celts? On page 124, she supposedly compares the goddess Erecura to Hecuba; this is stated in the article on Erecura without explanation of what the points of comparison are. I find this so baffling that I can't believe even the freely-inventive Miranda Green said it. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like she did [1]. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Cartography please[edit]

The second map in the entry on La Têne Culture leaves out Anglesey/Ynys Mon altogether. The article itself also makes no reference to the Llyn Cerrig Bach finds either. Curious/sloppy omissions? Letoketo (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:History of Vojvodina[edit]

Your attention is drawn to Talk:History_of_Vojvodina#Request_For_Comment_re:_WikiProject_Banners_on_this_page. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

New POV-pusher[edit]

A new user, User:Bard Cadarn, who also appears to edit from the IP address User:128.103.11.235, has been editing the articles on the Morrígan, Brigit of Kildare and others, to push an extreme neo-pagan POV, which he/she appears to be sourcing most of to a single website. Can somebody else help keep an eye? --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The user marked a change of spelling from Cernunnos to the inexplicable Cernnunos as a "minor" edit, so beware. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Celtic mythology template - POV alert[edit]

An anonymous IP is persistently changing the Celtic mythology template from this to this - claiming the changes are to make it "more practical" and "less unwieldy" in the edit summaries, when in fact he/she is converting a template giving an overview of Celtic mythological topics to an explicitly pagan religious one. A few more people monitoring the page would be helpful. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no conspiracy against Celtic mythology. I used religion as the title since the distinction between religion and mythology is mostly academical, and mythology is often an aspect of religion and not vice versa. However, in the latest change I just used the new structure with content unchanged, but it was reversed as well.--95.233.79.61 (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Stop being disingenuous. The distinction between religion and mythology is not academic. Mythology is about stories, religion is about ritual, practice, identity and ideology. You are changing the meaning of the template, and your structure hides non-religious topics under religious headings. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not disingenuous. You can add the new structure while keeping the content completely unchanged: I just missed to revert the title of the subset-headings.--95.233.79.61 (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Gallic vs. Gaulish[edit]

My understanding is that in contemporary English, "Gaulish" most often refers to the language, with "Gallic" meaning "pertaining to Gaul or its inhabitants". I know this isn't hard and fast, but there are a lot of category moves turning up where, for instance, "Gallic rulers" is changed to "Gaulish rulers". I'm expecting any day to see "Gaulish Wars" instead of "Gallic Wars". Can anyone give me a perspective on this? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing (and threats) at Tuatha Dé Danann[edit]

User:Prestigiouzman made an extremely tendentious edit to Tuatha Dé Danann, adding an alleged quote from Henry Rawlinson from 1853 claiming that the "Scythian warlords of the Sidhe" founded the Sumerian civilisation, sourced from a forum. When I reverted it, he left a message on my talk page saying "Dont ever go near that page again, your censorship attempts will get you in trouble". I've reverted again, but don't want to fall foul of 3RR, so could somebody else lend a hand? Nicknack009 (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are trying to maintain that Henry Rawlinson did not make that statement on the grounds of my source being abovetopsecret.com i will gladly find a more suitable source, and when i do i will undo once again another obvious censorship attempt, and by the way, nothing i have said constitutes being a threat, so get your facts strait--Prestigiouzman (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

He also added Dan (ancient city) (a city mentioned in the Bible) to County Laois, I removed it and I was in turn reverted "Because even without any citations whatsoever, modern genetic andthe sheer volume of exact correlations speaks entirely in its own rite". Lots of Irish/Celtic related edits by this new editor. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Connection based on Tribe of Dan final resting place after originating in Scythia,Exiled from Ireland, Incorporated into the Israelite Tribes, and emigration back to Ireland via up around de ewl Germanic Territory's, were an animal of habit you see my man, words out anyway,Hollywood's all over this one, all your desperado censorship attempts are in vain my good man.--Prestigiouzman (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This new article is problematic also Righdamhna. As is pov pushing of 'See alsos'. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
He's at it again, and he clearly isn't going to be reasoned with. He's read one very bad book, somehow got the impression that a paragraph that follows a mention of Rawlinson is a quote from Rawlinson (although it's not presented as such in the book), and is determined to insert it everywhere he thinks relevant, including at Sumerian language. What can be done about this sort of behaviour? --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sumerian:Anu Irish Anu SumerianAbarta Irish:Abarta Sumerian Cara Irish:Cara Sumerian:inanna Irish:Anann--Prestigiouzman (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Sanskrit: Tara = Mother Goddess Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_%28Buddhism%29‎ Irish: Tara = Mother Goddess/ Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara‎ Sanskrit: Siddhi= Superpower/ Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi Irish: Sidhe = Supernatural race/ Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aos_S%C3%ADen Sanskrit: Danu = Mother Goddess/ Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danu Irish: Danu = Mother Goddess/ Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danu_%28Irish_goddess%‎ / Sanskrit: Rishi = Sage/ Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishi Irish: Ri shee = King Fairy/ Ref: http://www.irish-word.com

There we go boy--Prestigiouzman (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This is just original research - see WP:NOR. And word sound-alikes or look-alikes are never good arguments, especially with languages written in different alphabets. And please don't add the Laurence Gardner quote again, he's not quoting Rawlinson and he fails WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It's worse than that, it's a Chewbacca defence. For all he understands of the words he's quoting, he may as well say that, because the Phoenician city of Byblos sounds a bit like "Bilbo", the Phoenicians must have come from Middle Earth. I mean, what possible parallel can be drawn from the similarity of the personal name of a minor character from a myth of Inanna (Cara) to the Irish word for a friend (cara), or the similarity between a female figure from Buddism (Tara) and the English name of an Irish place (Tara, Teamhair in Irish), or by equating two forms of the name of the same Irish deity (Anu, Anann) with two quite different Sumerian deities (Anu, Inanna)? Nicknack009 (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

it seems yis are startin te choke up a bit boys,and im just gettin warmed up ye see--Prestigiouzman (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, just a troll. Revert on sight. Nicknack009 (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Going to DYK - Basse Yutz Flagons Victuallers (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Feedback request: VisualEditor special character inserter[edit]

The developers are working towards offering mw:VisualEditor to all users at about 50 Wikipedias, including Breton and Welsh, that have complex language requirements. Many editors at these Wikipedias depend on being able to insert special characters to be able to write articles.

A special character inserter tool is available in VisualEditor now. They would like to know what you think about this tool, especially if you speak languages other than English. To try the Special character tool, please:

Screenshot of TranslateWiki interface
The “insert” pulldown on the task bar of VisualEditor will lead you to the ‘Special character’ tool.
Screenshot of Special Characters tool
This is the Special character inserter. Your feedback on this tool is particularly important.

To let the developers know what you think, please leave them a message with your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on Mediawiki.org or here at the English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. It is really important that the developers hear from as many editors as possible. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Rigantona[edit]

A user called User:Crychydd has converted Rigantona from a redirect to Rhiannon into a (poorly written) article about the supposed goddess. I can't see any justification in having a separate article. It's not like, for example, Nodens and Nuada where Nodens and Nuada are etymologically related but are attested independently of each other and have different attributes. Rigantona is simply the etymology of Rhiannon, and has no existence independently of Rhiannon. But I have no wish to get into an edit war, so I thought I'd bring it up here. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A minor pet peeve of mine. Not a source in itself, this blog discusses an article by Hutton on the subject.[2]. I've reverted. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that changing entries on the basis of 'minor peeves' is a rational way to proceed. The blog you refer to hardly supports your case. I fact I'm familiar with Hutton's argument as I subscribe to the academic journal in which he published it. Needless to say I disagree with his conclusions, which include denying that the characters in the Mabinogion could have been developments from earlier deities even where those deities such as Maponos are attested and would develop into Mabon on the same basis that *Rigantona would develop into Rhiannon. His arguments are based on what he would normally require as an historian as adequate proof for an assertion. But he is working outside his speciality here and most specialists in Celtic Studies take a different view. I can see where he is coming from in terms of similar arguments he advanced concerning the lack of evidence for a continuous development of the medieval witch cult, but the arguments do not transfer well to this field.

Nothwithstanding any of this it is surely irrelevant whether Rigantona is a 'supposed goddess' or not. Rigantona is referred to in the Rhiannon entry and whether or not there is a good reason to include further information there or put it in another entry is a matter of individual judgement rather than something that can be established as the right or wrong way to proceed. I happen to think it is useful to do this, particularly as the Rhiannon entry largely consists of rehashing the plot of the parts of the Mabinogion in which she appears. I fail to see any convincing argument why there should not a separate entry. Crychydd (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I change entries because they are wrong in some way. Hutton does support my case, even if you disagree with him. If you base your edits on disagreeing with Hutton that would be as bad as if I based my edit only because something annoyed me. There is simply no need for a separate entry as the main relevance of Rigantona is Rhiannon. See Wikipedia:Content forking. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You are not making sense. Disagreeing with Hutton is not a peculiar foible. Most people working in the field of Celtic Studies disagree with him so the consensus view - if this is to prevail - does not allow you to put your agreement with Hutton as a reason for a 'correct' change in an entry. Nor is the content forking article you referred me to as clear cut as you suggest. I'm prepared to be convinced but at present I have not heard an argument that gets anywhere near being convincing. Crychydd (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is, Rhiannon and Rigantona are the same thing. Rigantona is the etymology of Rhiannon, and is not attested as a word or as an object of worship independently of the study of Rhiannon in the Mabinogi. There is no need for two articles, and the article should primarily be about the one that's attested. Anything that can be usefully said about Rigantona can and should be said under Rhiannon. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
As far as Hutton as a source, it depends on the book and specific topic. Most of his work is a marked improvement over other Neopagan writers. He knows enough about Celtic studies, and history in general, to point out the blatant inaccuracies so many occult and mythology authors propagate. And since he is very familiar with the Neopagan communities, that makes him a much better than average source on those communities and the misinformation that regularly crops up in those articles. However, he's not really part of the field of Celtic Studies. When he does overviews of Celtic matters, sometimes he gets it right, other times... not so much. So his information needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. I'd consider him WP:RS for Neopaganism, especially of the British variety but, in most cases, only WP:V for Celtic studies. - CorbieV 17:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


"Republic of Ireland" de-capitalisation in running text[edit]

Editors are invited to participate in a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#.22Republic of Ireland.22 de-capitalisation in running text. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 16:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)