User talk:Metabaronic/Archive 1

Talk to 31/5/2010

Categories, sub-categories, and so on

Hello. You added Guthlac to category:Mercia, but he's already in category:Mercian saints, so really this isn't normally done. Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages explains that "Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch", so Guthlac doesn't go in category:Saints, because he's in some more specific ones, and the same for the Mercia category. Hope this makes sense, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm editing category:Mercia from scratch, and have incorporated category:Mercian saints as a sub-category, so changes are ongoing and duplications will be picked up as I go. Metabaronic (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably we could do with a "category:Mercian people" category to go between Mercia and Mercian monarchs/saints/whatever. I don't think Anglo-Saxon stuff is very well organised right now. Have fun, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Providing sources

Please be careful when including material from other sources, such as websites. While editing Battle of Cirencester, I noticed that you hadn't referenced the following website: Early British Kingdoms, but had clearly used it in drafting your article.

Thanks. Mephistophelian (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Largely because I hadn't finished editing the article. Boy you're fast! Metabaronic (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no harm intended. Mephistophelian (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cavila has pointed out this discussion. EBK is now cited as a self-published unreliable source. I've only used it as a preferred online alternative to cross-referenced facts, but it is worth being aware of. Metabaronic (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPA debate

I thouroughly recommend that you check this very special page out as quickly as possible if you have not already done so. It may take a while to read through all that is behind the links, but it will enable you see see what you are up against. The RfC angle has already been tried, and most of the participants were bullied off. Nevertheless you have my every support. --Kudpung (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Any debate regarding the points raised at Talk:Worcester will affect boardwide policy on MoS regarding the IPA, so the RfC proposal needs to be very carefully worded.--Kudpung (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IPA argument is now being applied to a different page, Beorma which I'd be grateful for you to take a look at. In this case it is not about the pronunciation of a place-name, but the word from which the place name may have been derived. Metabaronic (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]