User talk:Neddyseagoon/Aug to Oct 06

Bishops re-categorization

Richard Marsh

I noticed you were editing the Richard Marsh article. At the moment it refers to two distinct individuals - one 20th century and one 13th. We need a disambiguation page, I think. I don't know how to do this - do you? BTLizard 17:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the 20th century links on Richard Marsh's What links here page to the 20th century guy, then I'll move Richard Marsh to Richard Marsh (disambiguation)

Ah, I see - you mean there are 2 Richard Marsh (politician) s

Done - that seem to fit?

Yes, all working now thanks. In the meantime I'd set up a Richard Marsh (bishop) page, but I've flagged it for speedy deletion. BTLizard 18:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedrals aren't bishops

Hello! Just a quick question: why are you categorising cathedrals as bishops? Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 11:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism#Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in England, I'm trying to sort Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in England, and I thought it would be a nice touch to add their diocese and cathedral into their category, as a 'main page' Any help would be most appreciated! :-) [[User:Neddyseagoon|Neddyseagoon | [[Usertalk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 11:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. It's a good idea. However, may I propose that you do this by working a link to the bishopric's cathedral into the category text rather than by categorising the cathedral articles? After all, Coventry Cathedral is not a bishop of Coventry! Thanks. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An even better idea! Thanks [[User:Neddyseagoon | [[User talk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 15:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needle nardle noo! --RobertG ♬ talk 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop questions

Good work on the bishops. Aren't these two the same thing: Area Bishop of Dorchester and Bishop of Dorchester (Anglican)? If not, can you explain the difference in the articles. Thanks. Walgamanus 14:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged with a redirect.

Why is Category:Anglican bishops of St. David's not just Category:Bishops of St David's? It looks very strange as a sub-category of Category:Pre-Reformation UK bishops. Walgamanus 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does need moving to the latter Neddyseagoon 14:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is now Category:Bishops of Saint Davids. This should be Category:Bishops of St David's, to line up with Bishop of St David's and St David's which reflect wikipedia '.' policy and the correct spelling of the place-name. Walgamanus 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should not all the sub-categories under Category:Anglo-Saxon bishoprics really be under Category:Anglo-Saxon bishops so that it lines up with Category:Pre-Reformation UK bishops, etc? Articles under Category:Anglo-Saxon bishoprics should be Diocese of Dorchester and the like, although it would be better if the category was Category:Anglo-Saxon Dioceses to line up with Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of England & Wales, etc. Walgamanus 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why Category:Bishops of Sherborne and Ramsbury? This is a very odd category. Two separate categories would be better. Still doing a great job! Walgamanus 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough bishops in it yet to justify two categories. Could you give me a hand? I'm just sorting Category:Welsh bishops and Category:Scottish bishops into the relevant Anglican or Catholic categories, then going on to Category:Lists of Anglican bishops and archbishops to fill the Anglican bishop categories out [[User:Neddyseagoon | [[User talk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]]

Yes, no problem. I was going to offer, but didn't want to clash with what you were doing. My interest is really in the Anglo-Saxon and Welsh bishops, so I'll take a look at them for you if you like. I'm also interested in some of the early Scottish ones but I've always steered pretty clear of them because they become a real nightmare after the Scottish Reformation. Walgamanus 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rightho - I'll leave the rest of Welsh bishops to you, and if you could join me on Scotland and the lists once you've finished that, that'ld be great - it is rather a large task I've set myself![[User:Neddyseagoon | [[User talk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. BTW, I think the Anglo-Saxon bishops which continued into the post-Conquest period without moving (eg. Worcester), should still be listed under Category:Anglo-Saxon bishoprics or whatever it ends up being called. If this is done, then the articles for individual Anglo-Saxon bishops of Worcester (etc) don't also have to be categorised as Category:Anglo-Saxon people. I'm happy to do the work, if you agree.

Walgamanus 16:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! :-) [[User:Neddyseagoon | [[User talk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 16:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Jamieson

Hi Neddyseagoon - I've just reverted your change to Penny Jamieson. Unless you want to start a war, I'd advise you to never ever describe New Zealand as part of Australia. It's akin to calling Glasgow or Dublin an "English city". Grutness...wha? 22:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishops in Scotland

Hi Neddyseagoon - I've just reverted your categorisation of Bruce Cameron and Idris Jones as Archbishops of Scotland. We don't have archbishops in the Scottish Episcopal Church (and some of us are rather proud that we don't). Folk in the Scottish Episcopal Church are led by a Primus. (From Pimus inter pares - first among equals). Calling a primus an archbishop is is akin to referring to New Zealand as Australia.Kelvin Holdsworth 14:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so my knowledge of the SEC is as poor as my knowledge of Australasian geography - sorry! Could you give a hand with the Category:Scottish bishops and its various subcategories, as it's a bit of a tangle, particularly pre/post Reformation. Many thanks. :-) [[User:Neddyseagoon | [[User talk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 16:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Lake

Neddy, I'm curios why you would edit 'John Lake' and add a link when there is nothig to link to... what's your plan?

There is now, though not of my making - John Lake (bishop) [[User:Neddyseagoon | [[User talk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 10:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bishops of Man

Could you add whatever you used to create List of the Bishops of the Diocese of Sodor and Man as a reference/references ? Ta ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third Servile War

Greetings :)

I was wondering if you might have any interest in the current peer review, or A-class review, for Third Servile War. Looking at your current user page, it appears you have many projects on the go, so it might not squeeze into your Wikipedia time - and if you don't have the time, that's ok :) However, if you do want to take a look at it, and you have comments to make, I would very much appreciate if you would add them. Thank you :) - Vedexent 11:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hellenistic wars

I'm a bit baffled by this category. The articles there mostly aren't wars; there isn't, as far as I know, a broad conflict called the "Hellenistic wars"; and convention is to categorize wars by individual states, rather than by civilizations or cultures participating. Did you perhaps mean to create a Category:Hellenistic warfare instead? Kirill Lokshin 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better, yes. {{User|Neddyseagoon}} 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're done, then. Do you mind if I delete the old one? Kirill Lokshin 15:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all - also, could you remind me of the 'rapid deletion'/redirect tag for categories? Tar muchly. {{User|Neddyseagoon}} 15:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's {{cfr-speedy}} (which isn't all that rapid) and {{categoryredirect}} (which I don't believe works anymore). Kirill Lokshin 15:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPOOKS

You might notice a few changes around the project. Take a look . :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval battles

Category:Naval battles of the ancient world

Per the naming conventions for intersection categories, this should actually be Category:Ancient naval battles. :-) Kirill Lokshin 13:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

doh-us! I keep making those mistakes! Please help rectify. User|Neddyseagoon 13:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks done now. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: Category:Battles by era and it's children should follow the structure of Category:Warfare by period; hence, Category:Naval battles of the 16th century should become Category:Early Modern naval battles. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And we don't really need to categorize by century, since battles are supposed to be placed in the existing year categories already. :-) Kirill Lokshin 15:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just doing that as a work in progress, to break the 300 ones in Category:Naval battles into manageable chunks - then, for instance, one can go through 19th century changing to Category:Battles of the Napoleonic Wars, as most of them will be. User|Neddyseagoon 15:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just go directly into the era categories? There's about five of them, so that should bring the main category to a manageable size for further sorting. Kirill Lokshin 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! User|Neddyseagoon 15:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval battles of the Holy League

This one really shouldn't exist, as "Holy Leagues" were a dime a dozen during the period. Any objections to getting rid of it?

(Incidentally: you're doing amazing work on the recategorization. Please don't let my occasional pedantic complaints get in your way!) Kirill Lokshin 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, though could do with some category for 'opponents of Ottoman Empire' lumped together, as most of the 'Action of...' come under that heading. Any rounding up of help on it would be appreciated - tis a rather large task! Plus, is there any faster bot-type thing than AutoWikiBrowser? User|Neddyseagoon 16:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opponents tended to vary according to the war, so lumping them together too much would probably be confusing. I'm hoping we'll eventually get categories for each of the relevant wars with the Ottomans, which would make things a bit more sane; but that's a major project in its own right.

(As far as faster things: only an actual bot, and it'll probably take longer to get one approved than it would to just use AWB.) Kirill Lokshin 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Category:Naval battles of the Holy League (Mediterranean) is really an improvement. It's not a particularly significant alliance, lasting only a few years and fighting maybe three or four battles; is there any reason why we can't simply use the normal country categories for this? Or, if you specifically want a separate category, create it as Category:Battles of the War of the Holy League (1570-1573) under Category:Naval battles by war, instead? I'm concerned we're going to see a proliferation of "by country" categories for every incidental alliance that was formed during a war. Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better idea - feel free to delete it.User|Neddyseagoon 17:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, deleted it. Thanks again! Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, have just had a better idea - Category:Battles of the Turkish-Venetian Wars - gives a bigger time bracket. Could you delete battles of war of the Holy League please? User|Neddyseagoon 17:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :-) Kirill Lokshin 18:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clumping country categories

And a bit more pedantry from me:

By-country categories (e.g. Category:Naval battles of France) should be placed directly on by-war categories (e.g. Category:Naval battles of the Crimean War) only when every battle in that war involved that country. If a country participated in some battles but not others, its category should be left on the individual articles in question, rather than being placed on the overall directory.

Thanks! :-) Kirill Lokshin 20:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Angevin Empire

This seems to be a little confusing. Based on my reading of the article, what's filed under this should actually be under Category:Battles of the Kingdom of Naples, since it's referring to the Angevin dynasty there, not the England-based Angevin Empire. Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval battles and operations of World War II

The current split into Category:Naval battles of World War II and Category:Naval operations of World War II seems like a really bad idea, as we've gone to great lengths elsewhere to avoid categorizing based on the title of the article. Might I suggest merging the two and then only doing further subdivision by theater (e.g. Category:Naval battles and operations of the Far East Theater of World War II and so forth) without any determination by the "size" of the battle/operation? Kirill Lokshin 21:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less what I was groping towards! :-) Any help appreciated, as ever. Have done something similar to Category:Naval battles of World War I as a trial run.User|Neddyseagoon 21:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very nice! The names should probably be switched to use "battles and operations" all along the hierarchy rather than having "battles" for the main category and "operations" for its children, so we'd wind up having something like Category:Naval battles and operations of World War I in the Atlantic or Category:Naval battles and operations of the Atlantic theater of World War I (avoiding the noun-as-adjective usage as well); but changing the names is a minor point. Great work on the categorization, as usual! Kirill Lokshin 21:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All done, now rename as you so desire! And remind me, what's the difference between Pacific Campaign and Southeast Asia Theatre? We in the UK tend to lump these 2 together. User|Neddyseagoon 22:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure myself; the subtleties of WWII campaign naming aren't something I've taken much interest in. Probably the World War II task force should have a general discussion on what theater names to use for the top-level category division, as there are no doubt considerations other than how nicely the name parses. Kirill Lokshin 23:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval battles by era

Two minor points that might be useful:

Creating a sub-category for every war isn't required, and probably isn't too useful for wars that consisted only of one battle. There's nothing wrong, per se, with leaving articles directly in one of the "Foo naval battles" categories.
The dates on the periods follow the normal era breakdown:
- Ancient: to ~500 AD
- Medieval: ~500 to ~1500
- Early Modern: ~1500 to ~1792 (note the gap here)
- Industrial: ~1815 to ~1945
- Modern: after ~1945

Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historial countries

One more issue: the categories for historical countries (e.g. Category:Naval battles of Savoy) should not be sub-categories of the modern country that absorbed them (e.g. Category:Naval battles of France), but should be placed directly under Category:Naval battles by country. We don't want to create nested categories by assigning historical countries to modern ones; in many cases (e.g. in Eastern Europe) this gets mired in all kinds of nasty conflicts. Kirill Lokshin 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something for you

For your massive improvements to Wikipedia's categorization of battles, I hereby bestow upon you the *Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award*. Kirill Lokshin 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even keep up with the new categories anymore! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch naval battles in the East Indies

Please, not this; it took us nearly a year to get rid of the last vestiges of categorizing battles by location. Let's just leave these under the appropriate participants & wars. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Etruscan articles

Hello there. Just wanted to thank you for your work in creating and editing articles about Etruscan topics, it didn't go unappreciated. --Nehwyn 12:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priestfield

I took Priestfield, Kent off the disambiguation page because I couldn't find it on the 1:25,000 O.S. map (although the stadium is marked). I also removed the link from the Rochester Cathedral page. I am happy to put this back if you think an article could be written about it, but I think it would be better to call it Priestfield, Medway in order to match Gillingham, Medway, Chatham, Medway and Rochester, Medway.— CarolGray 13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedrals in Scotland

One needs to be very sure of oneself if trying to make subcategories of Cathedrals in Scotland. It is important not to use anglocentric nomenclature to describe things in Scotland. Thus, it is better to describe Cathedrals which are in the Scottish Episcopal Church as Scottish or Episcopal or simply to retain the category Cathedrals in Scotland without subdivison. This also stops one having to decide on where to categorize cathedrals historically. After all, some buildings in Scotland have been used as Cathedrals both before and after the Scottish Reformation and by Episcopalian and Presbyterian parties. Also, the Scottish Episcopal Church and its structures has not always been part of Anglicanism.

Mexico and South America

Regarding your edit to Popular Revolutionary Army, please note that Mexico is not in South America. --Descendall 07:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help & Servilia tree

Hi. I am new, I have recently done extensive edits to Roman Republican coinage, and would like some help/advice/direction, You seem to know what you are doing....

How do I get feedback on what I did?
I saw your Servilia family tree. Where do I find info on "familytree" syntax?
- Template:Familytree
Where do I find out about other such obscure syntax? How do I even know it exists?
How do I make all those userboxes (en, de-1, etc) on your home page appear?
- Wikipedia:Userboxes is a good start. I've archived mine onto a separate page as there are so many (User:Neddyseagoon/Userboxes)
Where should I ask such technical help questions in the future?
re: roman nomenclature; should the encyclopedia be using the standard Cn.f. Cn.n. form and appending most senior magistracy? I notice that Broughton (M.R.R.) and Brennan (P.R.R.) both point to Real Encyclopedia entries as well. Is there a policy on this?

(the rest moved of this thread has been moved to Template talk:Brutus family tree)

Curtius 17:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starter for Ten

Hey, noticed your edits, and wondered if you might be kind enough to tell me about the flming that took place at UCL. I know it's off topic, but i love the book, and am really looking forward to the film.

Noticed it on Film 2006 with Jonathan Ross recently and, as a loyal alumnus of UCL, realised that that was our quad (I think, though I did walk through it for 3 years! :-) ). User|Neddyseagoon 22:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, i had no idea it was featured on Film 2006. Do you know which ep? What did they say about it? user: Amoammo

Please when you are "disambiguating" novels please use the "(novel)" form rather than "(book)" which can be used for non-novel or novella forms. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last King of Scotland

Just a reminder: Wikipedia policy/guidelines at WP:CONTEXT specicfies that "What generally should not be linked" includes "the same link multiple times". The Manual of Style additionally says, "Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder". No biggie, just sayin'. --Tenebrae 01:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senators

Perhaps the senators could be placed into a category, like Category:Roman Senators or so. Pavel Vozenilek 16:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Roman stub types

What's with the large number of titchy, unproposed stub type creations? Can I draw your attention to WP:STUB, WP:WSS/P, and come to that, Help:Minor edit and Help:Edit summary? Alai 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that several of the categories which you copied over some text from contain {{WPSS-cat}} at the top. Perhaps you should have read it! Several of these stub types are now proposed for deletion, BTW. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pardon me all if I blundered through it a bit, but I'm just trying to make that stub category more manageablely sized - no wonder hardly any of them have been de-stubbed! User|Neddyseagoon 08:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Britons & Romans in Briton

Hi Neddy. I see you've been doing these categories. I've just done similarly for Sub-Roman Britain. I hope I haven't clashed at all. I don't think so. Walgamanus 12:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish grammarians?

Please see (and, I hope, respond to) my comment at Category talk:Jewish grammarians. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medieval Wales

Hi Neddy. I'd like to get rid of this category if it's OK with you. Almost all the sub-catgories under Category:History of Wales could also be sub-categories of Category:Medieval Wales. That's why I didn't create something similar when I did the tidy. Walgamanus 22:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia, and even a short summary is better than no summary. There is an option at special:preferences, under the "editing" heading, that, when checked, will remind you to use an edit summary on evey edit. Thanks! Picaroon9288 23:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]