User talk:Walgamanus

Ælfric's name discussion.

Hi Walgamanus,
Since you've recently moved material from the former Ælfric, Abbot of Eynsham article to the Ælfric Grammaticus article, I thought you might like to look at -- and perhaps contribute to this discussion about his name.

As things look now, I'll probably be renaming the article to Ælfric of Eynsham and making appropriate changes to the linked pages. Your comments would be very welcome. --SteveMcCluskey 17:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Steve. I have cast my vote. Walgamanus 20:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

County categories

Hi - I see you took Widecombe out of the "Devon" category and having thought it through that seems reasonable. But - trying to understand categories better - what should be in Devon do you think? I guess I was puzzled to to find Plymouth a sub category of "local government in Devon" with Plymouth categories (Sport, people etc) below that. Am I getting the hierachy wrong or what? Sorry to bug you and regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nigel. I'm very keen on hiercharchy integrity, so I'll often be found deleting unnecessary parent categories. Devon seems to be missing a few key categories which appear for other counties. I particularly note that there is no Organisations in Devon, Companies based in Devon or Geography of Devon. Many of the articles in the general Devon category could go under this last one. I can probably help out if you're going to do some work on it. Walgamanus 15:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say: Plymouth is under Local Government because the city and the unitary authority do not have separate entries. Exeter should be under there too, as well as Torbay and West Devon. Walgamanus 15:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to find someone who knows more than me (doesn't take a lot but). What you say about Exeter and Torbay being there too makes much sense - had they been there I probably would not have asked the question. The Westcountry as a whole interests me but I'd prefer to start small. The missing ones I understand although I guess there would be few Devon companies (under Wiki guidlines) that would be eligible for pages. The Geography one makes sense. For now Dartmoor is my main interest. The page is not as good as many National Parks and for now I went for a List of Dartmoor tors and hills to improve it (?). Any suggestions you have for categorisation will be of interest to me (learning is one of the reasons I'm here). Thanks and all the best --Nigel ^(Talk) 16:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bits extra - FWIW Cornwall's catefories/organisation seem equally varied (only other one I've looked at so far). Advice/thoughts etc welcome - regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 07:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if Cornish categories need some sorting out too. Take a look at Wiltshire/Hampshire/Berkshire. They're much tidier. Walgamanus 07:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. If you have ideas do let me know - I have AutoWiki (WP:AWB) which should allow me to change or add categories to a number of pages in one run - regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 07:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted out the Dorset, Devon and Cornwall categories now. Walgamanus 14:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Rheged

Hi, thanks for the expansions. Theelf29 21:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Theelf29. Walgamanus 22:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine of Cornwall

I have proposed a parargraph on the Veneration of St. Constantine. Vernon White 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Vernon. I just changed the bit about the dedication in Domesday, as it only actually records the name of the village. This is then (almost certainly correctly) assumed to be the dedication. Walgamanus 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a further comment, having just got hold of Charles Henderson's Parish of Constantine (1937)

Best

Vernon White 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject: Saints

Re Saint Swithun: I don't know how much editing of saints articles you do, have you seen this link Wikipedia:WikiProject_Saints#Templates? --evrik 20:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Evrik. I do a lot of work on British saints. The table template seems to have changed slightly since the last one I did. I'll add in what extras I can on Saint Swithun. Walgamanus 20:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

--evrik 03:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G. H. Doble

I have revised the WP article on Canon Doble. Could you have a look at it, please? --Vernon White

Well done, Vernon. Looks really good. I've made a few slight adjustments, mostly wikilinks. You could probably take the stub off now too. Walgamanus 08:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking - No Howlers! Do you think Doble's liturgical works were significant? e.g.

    Author - personal    DOBLE, Gilbert Hunter.
    Title                The “Lanalet Pontifical,” Bibliothèque de la Ville de Rouen, A.27. [On a liturgical manuscript probably in use at Wells Cathedral in the 10th century and containing the later addition of a form of excommunication used by “the Bishop of the Monastery of Lanalet,” i.e. the Celtic monastery-bishopric of St. Germans in Cornwall.] (Appendix. Missa Propria Germani Episcopi. [From a single leaf in Bodley MS. 572.]).
    Publisher/year       pp. 19. Burleigh Press: Bristol, 1934.
    Physical descr.      8º.
    Added Title          Liturgies. Latin Rite. Pontificals. II. Local. Wells

there are several other publications listed in the BL Catalogue. ---Vernon White 21:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't really comment. I only know his works on Cornish history. Walgamanus 09:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh saints

Is there any relationship between:

--evrik 16:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good spotting. Yes, these two are generally recognised as being the same person. I have transferred some additional info onto the English version, although the whole article needs a good tidy. I will have a go when I get the time. Don't think my French is up to doing it the other way round! Walgamanus 17:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

States in Medieval Britain

Hello Walgamanus. Great work you're doing! Just want to know is it yourself that is doing the map on the above site? If so, please get in touch as there are some rather significant revisions I'd like to pass on, to whoever is working on it. Cheers! Fergananim 17:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement, Fergananim. Details of the map's creator are given on its own page here. It seems to be largely based on David Nash Ford's maps on the Early British Kingdoms website. Walgamanus 19:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Age categories

Greetings Walgamanus
I have no intention of starting an edit war, but would you be so kind to inform me why you keep removing *the* single person that Danish history considers pivotal in connection to the Viking Age from this category? Harald Bluetooth built six ring castles and the Kanhave Canal on Samsø, and ordered the erection of the Jelling Stones. These eight monuments are the main archaeological proof that Denmark had any connection to the Vikings at all. In Danish history writing, Harald's reign defines the ~~introduction~~peak of the Viking Age. Such a focus might be somewhat unfair towards Canute the Great, but that is another story. Anyway, his structures are always referred to as "Viking Age" and Harald is referred to as a key Viking ruler, so I don't understand at all why he should not be notable enough for inclusion there. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valentinian. I've been tidying up the Category:Viking Age. All Viking Age person are being placed under the Category:Norse people. Harald's Category:Danish monarchs is a sub-sub-category of this, so is no longer needed. I can give him a wikilink in the Category:Viking Age intro, but I haven't written one yet. Sorry I didn't explain in my second edit summary. I saved it before I realised you had only just reverted it. Walgamanus 01:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Walgamanus, I'm here to ask the same thing as Valentinian. Maybe the move is not complete yet, but there are no names at all in the subcategory under Category:Norse people [–] Norse monarchs and for example [–] Danish monarchs yet. Are you planning to go back over all the entries and add new sub categories in order to make them appear in their newly assigned sections? Also: has there been a discussion somewhere, which we have missed, where a decision was taken on this rather drastic reorganization? I personally much prefer Category:Viking Age as classification, because it seems like the natural choice and the category most people would turn to when hoping to find info about Viking age people and kings. If non-experts were to conduct a spontaneous online search for monarchs of this era, that's probably what they would use. "Norse" seems a much more diffused concept and has "saga" connotations. Maybe your intentions will become clearer as the names are moved in and are appearing in their sections? I hope you have not planned to make the Category:Viking Age disappear altogether. I resent seeing it depopulated, especially since the Viking age is now losing all its key people, but I would really hate for it to be wiped out altogether. ;) I suggest the people of the Viking age are allowed to appear in both categories, Norse people and Viking age monarchs. A lot of names have lost their era categorization altogether now..what's the reasoning behind this move? Best wishes, Pia 05:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. It makes a bit more sense to me now. However, I have to agree with Pia on this one. Sorting the monarchs collectively under "Norse" means that you've also grouped the Glücksburg and Oldenburg monarchs (including Queen Margrethe II) as part of this group, however, Scandinavians normally use the term "Norse" as somewhat of a catch-all phrase regarding the late prehistoric and early historic period. After a certain rather unspecified point in time, we stop using the term. Going by Danish history as a guide; I'd say that Canute IV (=Canute the Holy, dead 1086) was the last Viking ruler. He didn't conquer England, but he certainly wanted to. I also consider the term "Norse" to be inaccurate as soon as we can positively identify that the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes have developed languages clearly distinct from each other, and it probably happend around say 1100-1200. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 06:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys. I'm glad to have spurred some debate and thanks for the information regarding category names. This is much-appreciated. The reorganisation emerged when I tried to pull out the Anglo-Norse categories and couldn't find them because Viking Age was so big. I didn't really mean the reorg to be so widespread, but it seemed sensible at the time. The basic idea was to split off the Viking age people from Viking age things/places because the two are quite distinct. From what you've said, it seems I need to:

Change Norse people to Viking Age people
Change Norse monarchs to Viking Age monarchs
Ensure that all Viking Age Danish, Norwegian and Swedish monarchs are under the category Viking Age monarchs
Ensure Danish, Norwegian and Swedish monarchs categories are no-longer sub-categories of Viking Age monarchs

I would suggest that mythological/semi-legendary/petty monarchs remain merely as sub-categories of Viking Age monarchs. Does that sound good? I'd be grateful for some checking when I've finished Walgamanus 07:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the category tidy. I'm sure fellow Viking Age fans will make lots of tweaks, but I hope this makes things a lot more accessible. Walgamanus 16:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Age names

Hi. I've noticed you've moved a number of pages on Scandinavian historical figure, removing diacritics, ligatures and sometimes nominative endings. Please slow down a bit. Moves like that are usually controversial and if they need to be done it's best to gather consensus (or at least a second opinion) first and take care to select the most suitable name. In your recent series of moves you moved one page to Thordr Kolbeinsson and another to Thjoldolfr of Hvinir. Those forms are idiosyncratic, neither of them gets any English-language Google hits. I've reversed some of those moves.

Haukur 16:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It just seemed daft to me. There only seem to be about three that do this and I couldn't even begin to guess at a pronunciation before I went into the article. As I speak English, I read the English wikipedia. I don't want to read the Old Norse wikipedia. I'd have to learn Old Norse for that. I've fixed the categories and left the article titles. Walgamanus 16:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the need to provide transliterations and pronunciation information. I do work on that (see e.g. Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson) but there's still a lot of work to be done. Haukur 16:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Canna

Just to say - thank you for adding details to the Saint Canna article. It is very much appreciated! Rgds, - Trident13 23:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Walgamanus 08:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juthwara and Sidwell and Urith, oh my

Thanks for cleaning up the small battery of saints' articles I put together yesterday. I'm afraid the only resource I have is Farmer, who's a really good capsule resource but not so helpful on deeper background. Sorry, too, about the duplicate article for Urith - I checked every iteration except "Saint Urith", I'm afraid.

Thanks again! --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Albert. Your article title for Urith was better anyway. There was no need for the dab prefix. Do you have any more British saints planned? Also, thanks for introducing me to the term cephalophore. I love discovering new words. Walgamanus 21:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I love digging things like that up.

Regarding other British saints...probably, though I can't say when, exactly. There are a couple I'd like to get around to...like the fellow who had the silver hand and golden foot - or was it the other way round? I can never remember his name. I tend to look for saints with unusual Legends and interesting factoids about them. Like Saint Pyr - I think he's probably one of my favorites... --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just correcting myself - it was a bronze foot, and that was Saint Mylor. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 07:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, where are you finding information on the commonest form of names? Farmer uses Mylor and Kyned for Melor and Cenydd, which is where I picked those up. I really don't have anybody else to go on, I'm afraid. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baring-Gould & Fisher's 'Lives of the British Saints'; Doble's 'Cornish Saints Series'; Doble's 'Lives of the Welsh Saints'; Orme's 'Lives of the Saints: Devon & Cornwall'; Orme's 'The Saints of Cornwall'; Bartrum's 'Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts'; The Church in Wales website, etc, etc. Farmer's not that good at picking the most common form for Brythonic names. Walgamanus 08:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I was afraid of that. Unfortunately, I don't have easy access to those others. Sorry to make extra work for you on that count. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Britons

Hi Walgamus,

I notice that you have been keeping an eye on King of the Britons, the page that previously contained content about legendary kings of Britain, and then which was changed to redirect to List of legendary kings of Britain (where the information was shifted), and then which I removed the redirection on, and filled with content on historical kings of the Britons. You may have noticed that User:TharkunColl has trashed all of this by making the page once again redirect to List of legendary kings of Britain.

I'm relatively new to wiki contributions, but this seems like unethical behaviour to me. What can be done about this? I can see why TharkunColl could have been annoyed that all the links he(?) originally put in to King of the Britons no longer went to the article he cares about, the one on legendary kings. But that's no excuse for deleting lots of good information in a sensibly-named article. Personally I think that a user searching for King(s) of the Britons should in the first instance be presented with fact rather than legend. Is there a protocol for dealing with situations like this? I don't want to get into a futile editing war with TharkunColl. A compromise in which King of the Britons leads to a disambiguation page, and in which my material was retitled Historical Kings of the Britons or something like that, would be acceptable to me. But it might not be acceptable to TharkunColl because his main beef seems to be that the old links he put in don't go direct to his List of legendary kings of Britain page.

Help! Vortimer 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it needs reverting and a discussion opening on the talk page. However, hold fire and I'll take a look at the situation before giving a full opinion. Walgamanus 08:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Having checked things out, it looks as if TharkunColl is concerned about the number of articles that link to 'King of the Britons'. Some of these specifically refer to legendary kings (particularly the succession boxes) and should therefore be changed to point to List of legendary kings of Britain. As you were the one you created the non-legendary article out of the re-direct, strictly speaking these changes should be done by you. However, wiping out all your hard work in creating the article (complete with excellent references) is petty in the extreme and, indeed, vandalism. TharkunColl states you have had ten months to do this. You have only actually had two and presumably you did not even realise there was a problem with the linked articles. A friendly enquiry would have been in order. After all, that's what the talk pages are for. And, of course, there is nothing to stop TharkunColl doing the link changing work him/herself. If you check out their own talk page, you can see what they've been up to in the past. Don't worry about it. I'll do a revert and put a note on the discussion page that I've requested the links be fixed. Walgamanus 13:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the linked articles should all have been changed to point to List of legendary kings of Britain by whoever originally moved it; and now TharkunColl has made King of the Britons a redirect again, they should fix all the linked articles! Walgamanus 14:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is it up to me or not? The name was originally changed from King of the Britons to List of legendary kings of Britain because of concerns about having legendary material under an article heading that did not clearly identify it as such. This happened, it would seem, 10 months ago. I'm not sure who TharkunColl expected to fix the links in the last 10 months. It does not seem to have been discussed on Talk:List_of_legendary_kings_of_Britain or Talk:King_of_the_Britons. There are more than 100 articles that link to 'King of the Britons'! Is it really up to me to change them all (that is, the vast majority of them that should be lins to List_of_legendary_kings_of_Britain? Is there a way to do a global replace, and then to change back the links from the last 2 months that really are directed at King_of_the_Britons? Or (even better) a way to do a global replace with temporal restrictions? I guess it would be a bad thing if anyone could do this, but is there any board or something to whom requests like this can be sent? Vortimer 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that it really is up to you, because you hijacked what was originally just a redirect. TharkunColl 00:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also have said the following. At first, it was indeed the case that I did not realise there was a problem with the linked articles. When I became aware of the large number of linked articles, I put up the front-matter (for want of a better word) to King of the Britons, stating "Links to this article were formerly redirected to List of legendary kings of Britain. If you are looking ...". I had hoped that this would be acceptable, as it only requires the reader to make one click to find the article they were meant to be directed to, and on the way they also find the King of the Britons article, which in some cases may be more appropriate anyway. Vortimer 00:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should redirect all the links. There are hundreds of them, and it's your responsibility. If you had wanted to create a new article, you should have given it a new name, rather than hijack hundreds of links from elsewhere. I shall continue redirecting until you have made the appropriate changes, because you created the article in March and should have done it long before now. I would also suggest you think about the Wikipedia policies against POV and original research, and rethink your article accordingly. TharkunColl 00:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have relocated this discussion to Talk:King_of_the_Britons. I am still looking for suggestions about the easiest way to fix the problem. Vortimer 02:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Patrick

Hello ! I'm working on a rewrite of Saint Patrick at User:Angusmclellan/Saint Patrick. If you have any comments or suggestions, can you let me know. Your input would be much appreciated. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British archaeology categories

Dear Walgamanus 6,000 bronze artefacts have been found in Isleham! and you don't consider it an archaeological site. Now what does a site have to offer to deserve such a label??, --Antiphus 16:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I echo this question about the categories Category:Archaeological sites in England, Category:Neolithic settlements, Category:Prehistoric sites in England, Category:Scheduled Ancient Monuments in England. You have removed from Nempnett Thrubwell, Chew Valley Lake, Chew Stoke and Chew Valley one of more of these cats, which I have on my watch list. What is the rationale for these removals?— Rod ^talk 17:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)‎‎‎[reply]

Hi Antiphus and Rod. The articles on Isleham, Nempnett Thrubwell and Chew Stoke are articles about villages/civil parishes which happen to have archaeological sites within the bounds of the parish and these are mentioned in the text. This does not make each article as a whole about an archaeological site. Now, Isleham is quite important as the location of the discovery of the Isleham Hoard and I have created an article for this which is now placed in Category:Bronze Age Britain. Similarly, for the Nempnett Thrubwell article, the archaeology is specifically related to the Fairy Toot, so I suggest an article is created for that under Category:Prehistoric sites in England. For Chew Stoke, I would suggest an article for the Chew Stoke Roman Temple under Category:Roman religious sites in England. Listing the Chew Valley as an archaeological site is a bit misleading. The article lists and links to many specific sites and these can be listed under archaeological site categories. I left Chew Valley Lake under Category:Roman villas in Britain, but the fact that "excavations found evidence of people belonging to...consecutive [prehistoric] periods" doesn't really qualify it for listing under Category:Prehistoric sites in England. The trouble is you can say this sort of thing about many many villages or other locations in England. Listing them all would make the categories unwieldy and quite frankly useless. I hope my suggested compromises help. Walgamanus 14:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Walgamanus. I for my part wouldn't consider your suggestion a compromise but rather an improvement. Thank you for that, best wishes,--Antiphus 14:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the edit to remove the category from North Ferriby. As a place, North Ferriby is a bit of non-entity but to a maritime archaeologist it means Bronze age boats. This is an incredibly significant site and the category is needed to enable people interested in finding out about archaeology to find the article. If you look at the article history, you will find the stub was actually created to hold the archaeological content - without the archaeology I doubt if North Ferriby would really merit an article. Viv Hamilton 12:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viv. I'm sure there is much more to North Ferriby than an a couple of old boats! I've created a new article for the Ferriby Boats to circumnavigate the problem. Appropriate archaeological categories are now attached to that rather than the North Ferriby article. Walgamanus 17:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - The new article is great Viv Hamilton 18:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you removed these categories from Carn Brea; Category:Archaeological sites in England , Category:Iron Age Britain, Category:Stone Age Britain with reference to a parent category. I'm confused as to which parent you mean and how this would navigate down to Archaelogical sites, Iron Age or Stone age. Could you clarify on the Carn Brea talk page?-- Ashley VH 16:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have done so, Ashley. Walgamanus 16:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Anglian Monarchs

Hello Walgamanus, Thanks for your attention to my efforts on the East Anglian Monarchs series. I have looked at and revised Eni, Eorpwald, Sigeberht, Anna, Aethelwold and Eadwald so far, and an article for Dommoc, but plan to work on several more of these kings and related subjects. I am just trying to get the hang of talk pages and wiki conventions (I am a wiki novice) and would be grateful for any guidance on present showings in that or any other respect. Also perhaps we could discuss the listing itself? Eni is not a king, Ricberht is very doubtful, Hun may be a scribal error, Alberht now referred to as AEthelberht I (M Archibald) (and therefore St AEthelberht is AE II, etc - things like that. Cheers, Dr Steven Plunkett 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven. Welcome to Wikipedia. I know some of the other Saxon royal dynasties better, but it's good to see East Anglia getting some attention. I'll drop by and take a look at the other articles you've expanded very soon. I think what I added was almost exclusively wikilinks. Knowing which other articles already exist on Wikipedia is, unfortunately, largely a matter of familiarity with, in this case, the Anglo-Saxon England categories. Æ is usually written Æ or Ae on Wikipedia. The convention for Anglo-Saxon personal names hasn't yet been sorted out, but there seems to be a preference for Æ. Personally I like Ae because that's what you type in on your keyboard. These things tend to be quite contraversial. Anyway, otherwise it all looked excellent. I like the introductions to be very short, but that's more of a personal preference. Section titles should be in sentence-style, but that's a minor point. I'm sure you've had a good read of the Manual of Style already.

If there is a recognised suggestion of kingship in some quarters, I would suggest articles are still listed under Category:East Anglian monarchs even though the article itself may explain otherwise, since readers may expect to find them there. Many of the lists of English kings and bishops do need some tidying, so I'm sure some work on List of monarchs of East Anglia would be welcome. I'm not up on the latest info concerning Alberht. Was he the one with the single coin, now in the British Museum? If the change of name is now generally accepted, I'd just fix it (with full redirects and references of course). "Be bold" as they say.

Always happy to help, if you need any other pointers. I will do some more reading and get back to you. Walgamanus 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias Walgamane, found your note on user discussion page. Have now made an elementary Userpage at last! I started thinking it ought to be an Æ but I fully agree that no-one will type that in the wiki search engine. In fact I had to copy from your text above to put it in the previous sentence to this, and you can't do that when you're just going into the main page. The trouble is that some are usually written just E, some just A, etc., and the searcher won't know what to type. Ideally the article title would be always Æ but this would auto-link to a search beginning with E, A, Ae or AE as well. Yes Alberht is the one with the single coin from Butley, see MM Archibald, VH Fenwick and MR Cowell 1996 in Brit Numismatic Journal 65, 1-19. He has a unique moneyer so no useful overlaps for chronology, but the style of the die is like the Wilred runic sceattas of Beonna which are thought to be Late Beonna, because they innovate over the other types which are continuous from pre-Beonna times. Hence MMA argues that AEthelberht I (who first appears at the kingdom division of 749) is still there in late Beonna times, though another annal has Beonna (no mention of Alberht) ruling in 760 (recte 758). I don't think 'Alberht' to 'AEthelberht' really constitutes an actual change of name, rather, an explanatory expansion of a form preserved in a late annal, based on the coin reading, which is E.Th.Æ.L.B.E.R.T., all runic. The coin is certainly East Anglian, certainly contemporary with Beonna (form and archaeological context) and certainly not an issue of the 790s (in case one thought it was of St Ethelbert (also called Albright - a similar contraction)). Unless one wants them both to be the same person, with a long reign? - Wonderful Anglo-Saxon history! Please point me to where you would like future discussion posted. Thanks again, Tom. Dr Steven Plunkett 21:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, for instance, do categories 'Anglo-Saxon People' etc not link (see foot of new article, St Aethelred of Kent)? 'Tom' by the way is my usual name. (see new userpage) Dr Steven Plunkett 01:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are case sensitive and are written in sentence-style. I've fixed them for you. There's no need for the Anglo-Saxon people category on this article since it is a parent category of the other two. They're usually listed in alphabetical order. I've also moved the article as saints have a specific naming convention. Basically, in titles and text, Saint is always used in full when referring to the person. St is used when referring to dedications, churches, places, etc. Having said that, for article titles, the Saint is dropped completely if no disambiguation is necessary. Hope this helps. Walgamanus 18:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all you're doing - enjoyed the editing clash on Sigeberht! Dr Steven Plunkett 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. BTW, I've just realised I was given your book on Anglo-Saxon Suffolk for Christmas. I will start reading! Walgamanus 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

omigod... I regret I erred in several places, especially on the identification of St Eadburgh correspondent of Boniface with St Eadburgh/Ecgburgh sister of King AElfwald. There is a real confusion but (as you are in the saints project) beware. Not quite sure which was abbess of Minster. Addendum relic of Mildthryth at Deventer (fits my argument). Lege felix. Dr Steven Plunkett 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New inquiry - I'm trying to tidy up dates and succession boxes for the East Anglian rulers and find I'm crossing over with Angus Mclellan in the same task. I've posted a few queries to him on his discussion page, and would welcome your contribution at this stage before making whatever changes we might agree. Thanks for losing the image, if it was you. Dr Steven Plunkett 19:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Image, please help

Can you please help? I have inadvertently uploaded an image of myself onto a page entitled Image:Dr Steven Plunkett.jpg. It was not my intention to do this!!!! I was experimenting with my userpage in order to see how to insert images into pages I am working on and this happened. I'm afraid I'm a little stupid in these methods and have done the wrong thing. Humble apologies. I would like to remove the image, however jovial it may seem, from wikipedia altogether as soon as possible. Could you kindly delete the entire page, image and all? I have not made the link live as it will take up the whole of your discussion page! Sorry Dr Steven Plunkett 04:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Cybi

See my response on the discussion page. Pastordavid 16:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sticking with this -- I think the article has finally settled in the right location. Pastordavid 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Sorry about the mess up. I'd still like to know where Caenarvon is? Walgamanus 23:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure ... I have only seen it in reference to this saint (as per the cites on the talk page). However, a quick google search brings up this castle in Wales (also pictured here), and this list has it as a county/shire in Wales (about half-way down the list). There are a bunch of other google hits -- apparently it is an area (or maybe town) around or near this castle. Not knowing the geography of the British Isles, I don't know that I can be of much more help on that question. Pastordavid 00:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Caernarfon Castle in Caernarfon in Caernarfonshire. There should be an 'r' in the middle. They are all typos and, as far as I can tell, every reference to Caenarvon on the web is a typo for Caernarvon (now Caernarfon). This is the place I suggested you meant on the Cybi talk page. It's about twenty miles south-east of Holyhead where Cybi resided. Walgamanus 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venta Belgarum

Thanks for writing this article, it matched up with mine Procurator Cynegii. Headphonos 01:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koenwald

I was wondering about a category (or categories) for Anglo-Saxon monks and nuns. Would that be worthwhile? I'm not sure how many articles are expected as a minimum for a category. Curiously, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar of saints (Church of England)

Hi - I saw your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints with a mention about the Anglican church. I wondered if you would like to have an opinion about Talk:Calendar of saints (Church of England)#Proposed rename of article to in accordance with the 1958 Lambeth Conference resolution? Thanks --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible renaming of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints

It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Gododdin

Hello! Y Gododdin is a GA nom. I'll do a little bit of copy editing tomorrow and pass it. I've just sat and read the whole thing out loud to be sure it makes sense, and it seems all top notch apart from a few minor infelicities. Like I said before, great work! Next stop FA. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chew Stoke FAC

Hi, I've recently put Chew Stoke up as a Featured Article candidate. As you have edited this article in the past I wondered if you would like to make any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke?— Rod ^talk 07:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad of Mercia

Hallo. As far as I can see it was you who put "astronomers" in his infobox, 26 Nov 06. NO-one seems to have queried it, but I wonder where you found this? Various sources seem to allocate it to Saint Dominic. Just curious, as I've found an association of Chad with medicinal springs, and can't find any trace of him linked to astronomy. PamD 12:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Winwaloe

I have linked the Breton towns mentioned in the Saint Winwaloe article to WP Fr. Hope this is OK.

Best Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 08:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Original barnstar! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jórvík

Hello, I just thought I'd mention that I reverted your edit on this article. The flags (and the arrow links with them) are the standard way to link to the culture who controlled the area before the Norse took it, and then the peoples who controlled the area after the Kingdom of Jorvik collapsed. Both either side of the Vikings was the Kingdom of Northumbria; its not saying the Northumbrian flag is that of the Nordic kingdom. Regards. - Yorkshirian 06:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I still think it's a bit odd. Walgamanus 21:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh people and places

Hi, thanks for your message. I can see the validity of some of the points in your argument. For instance if a king or prince of Brycheiniog or Gwynedd etc. was known with certainty to have been born in a particular town or narrow locality it would be fair enough for him to be categorised in say "Category:People from Bangor", no matter what the higher category might be. However there are a few difficulties which arise partly from the current very limited and unsatisfactory Welsh place-related categories - i.e. they have been unilaterally created for the pre-1974 counties only - but also from the impossibility of knowing in most cases just where an early monarch was born. To give one example of the latter point, the category Monarchs of Gwynedd had been placed in People from/History of the post 1282 counties of Anglesey, Caerns, Merionethshire, and Denbs. Apart from the obvious anachronism, this suggests to somebody using the Denbs category that all the monarchs of Gwynedd were born there when we can't say with certainty that any of them were. At least one king of Gwynedd - Gruffudd ap Cynan - was born in Dublin, and he may not be alone: so do we put cat Monarchs of Gwynedd in cat People from Dublin? I notice that monarchs of the various early English kingdoms are categorised under Anglo-Saxon monarchs only, without being included in counties, current, traditional or otherwise (an exception, if it exists, would be if a king is known to have been born in a particular town or area with its own category): Category:Mercian monarchs is not found under any of the English Midlands people cats (e.e. West...), as far as I can see.

Another point is the contentiousness of some of the "traditional county" names in modern Wales, for instance Caernarfonshire, Merionethshire and especially Cardiganshire. The latter was Ceredigion before the post-conquest shire arrangement, remained Ceredigion as a cultural and geographical unit (bro), and is today the county of Ceredigion; many Welsh people would see the use of Cardiganshire as a category as a deliberate snub or, if you like, a political statement. That's another problem that definitely needs adressing. Whatever the merits of the former counties, they should definitely not take the place of existing counties (especially regarding places and buildings). Wikpedia has a naming convention on this. And what about people born after 1974? That was 33 years ago, after all. If you describe a 20-30 year old from Gwynedd or Ceredigion as "someone from Caernarfonshire/Cardiganshire" they'll think you're taking the p**s (at the very least!).

This all needs wider discussion and it's getting late in the day, so I'll leave it for now. I'm not saying I've got all the answers either, just trying to get a balanced and logical category scheme going. Would appreciate your comments. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Forgot to mention that I've put a note in Category:People from Brecknockshire which directs people to cat Monarchs of.. (category of 1 at present!). Enaidmawr (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barons Abergavenny

I have found that you were the editor who introduced the titles of 7th and 10th Barons Abergavenny for the two men named William de Braose. Can you tell me how you came up with the numbers 7 and 10? It doesn't accord with any of the lists I can find and seems to make these men more confused rather than less. Wothout a reference for the numbers 7 & 10 I am inclined to remove them. Please reply to my talk page --Doug (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Christianity

Hello Walgamanus!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Wells

Category:Wells, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Hesperian 13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Organisations in Devon

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for consensus for editing Template:Catholicism

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Catholicism#Edit_request_on_7_December_2012 to edit the list of Doctors of the Church to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen and do this by embedding Template:Churchdoctor. I am messaging you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Walgamanus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Walgamanus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anglo-Normans in Ireland has been nominated for renaming

Category:Anglo-Normans in Ireland has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Viking Age clergy has been nominated for renaming

Category:Viking Age clergy has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Viking Age in the British Isles has been nominated for deletion

Category:Viking Age in the British Isles has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion request

Hello colleague,

I am interested in the Middle Ages too.

I created Category:Medieval civilizations which is part of Category:Civilizations by time. The former is nominated for deletion and at the moment the vote is 2:0 in favor of deletion. I am used to deletions, but this time I am stunned. I do not believe there is no place for such a category. I believe that most people with interest in history would agree that civilizations existed in the Middle Ages. I ask people to contribute their opinion to the discussion. Regards,--Maxaxa (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monarchs of Anglo-Saxon England has been nominated for merging

Category:Monarchs of Anglo-Saxon England has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Viking Age clergy has been nominated for merging

Category:Viking Age clergy has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of St Hilda's Church, Griffithstown for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St Hilda's Church, Griffithstown is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Hilda's Church, Griffithstown until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

''Flux55'' (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]