|WikiProject Celts||(Rated NA-class)|
Why dont put Galicia as a celtic nation? Galicia does not have a celtic language but it is a celtic nation instead. Please, change it or put a special status for the Galician country (nation of Breogán).--188.8.131.52 17:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- This template contains the Celtic nations as determined by major pan-Celtic organizations such as Celtic League (political organisation) and Celtic Congress. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Galicia is not celtic. Maybe the weather and landscapes are quite similar but it does not mean that it can be considered as a Celtic Nation. I am Galician and I can see a lot of differences between these nations. I am happy being a Galician and also I am pretty shure that, these Celtic nations do not think we are celts. They think we are like africans and this is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
This template has evolved significantly from the original version i.e. solely languages/nations, to something which encompasses almost all of modern Celtic culture, perhaps it is worth modifying it to be celtic regions and extending it to include Galicia, which would contribute geographic, music and cultural articles. I can undertand the origianl objections, but are they still valid? 220.127.116.11 08:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the links to Shelta and Galloway Gaelic. Lets just stick to the major languages. Shelta isn’t a Goidelic language at all anyway and if we’re to include Galloway Gaelic then where do we stop? I’m sure the differences between Munster and Ulster Irish are equally significant, but do we really need to include them?
You can find links to this info on the pages linked here anyway.
- I agree with the above regarding dialects of the major Celtic languages, but given that this template is about Celtic nations, what is the rationale for excluding languages spoken exclusively or mainly by the populations of those nations (e.g. Shelta, Lallans/Scots language, Ulster Scots)? It seems clear to me that such languages need to be included here.
--Yumegusa (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Celtic "nations" has no existence in reality, its the invention of a minor political organisation which has no real world standing. Weekender recreationalists. To try and lump Germanic languages like Scots language and Ulster Scots as if they were "Celtic" is absouteluy ridiculous, proposterous against WP:CITE and most likely offensive to the people who speak them. Especially with Ulster Scots. You can't simply mythologically rewrite history and pretend Germanic languages belong in a template about Celtic Revivalists, who are you to enforce this minor political organisations stances onto millions of people who have no connection with it? - Essence Burst (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- The template is "Celtic nations" and reference to modern Celtic nations is found in numerous neutral sources (check Google Books), so it's hard to read the above as anything but baseless rant. What basis is there for removing Germanic languages spoken mainly or exclusively by populations of said Celtic nations from this template? What a "minor political organisation"'s stance is is of no relevance here, so let's stay on-topic.--Yumegusa (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- The chance that User:Essence Burst is anything but a sockpuppet of User:Voice of the Walk is minimal. From time to time we have to deal with these people who have decided there are no such things as Celts, that's it's all some sort of conspiracy against the English. Yawn. WP:RBI. —Angr 12:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Road Runner IPs are adding "New England" to the list of claimants - is there anything to substantiate this? It seems to be a bizarre claim, given New England's history...
I've reverted once, but I'm reluctant to edit war over this.
- And I reverted the second time. If there is anything to substantiate it, then New England should be added (with sources cited, of course) to the article Celtic nations, and any discussion should take place at Talk:Celtic nations. This template shouldn't include anything that isn't backed up in the main article. +Angr 11:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- No supporting references were forthcoming in over a week, so England and Padania have been removed. Daicaregos (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- In Padania, Lega Nord promotes a kind of Celtic heritage (Gallic heritage, for more precisions), tracing the origins of Northern Italians to the Cisalpine Gauls. There are Radio Padana libera which broadcasts Celtic music and Padania Tour which plans travels to Lorient (in Brittany, France). French claim to be Celts too, and France was in fact the first country to develop the idea of "Celtic revival" with Scotland. By the way I didn't know that there were such claims in England (except Cumbria and probably Devon too). In fact there are Belgium and Switzerland too. Belgium was named during the first great spreading of Celtic revival ideas, at the end of the 18th century (at the same time Netherlands were renamed Batavian Republic, following the movement). Maybe we should create a new category for diaspora areas where there are such claims, like Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Quebec and Acadia - I don't really know how it is in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, New England and Labrador). --CampagnardDeter (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I would welcome views on whether or not to add a 'Nationalism' section to the template. This would comprise the following links, meaning that they wouldn't need to be included in the 'See also' sections:
- Don't see why not, but it might overlap with Template:Celtic nationalisms. Manx nationalism might not have an article but it does exist. --Joowwww (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The current colour scheme of this template is terrible, garish, and poorly contrasting. Can we please change this from green/yellow to something friendlier to the eye? – Dyolf87 (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)