Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Celts/Archive 1

Celts discussion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description

This culture, which has influenced literature, farming, navigation and so much of European life, for 4,000 years, and covers places as diverse as Portugal and Asia Minor, would be worthy of its own project. Modern areas still Celtic include Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales. For a good illustration of what this project could be, see the project "Projet:Celtes" and the related portal "Celtic World" in the Francophone Wikipedia.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Chris 04:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Malathos 04:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Gwalarn 11:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC) for modern Celtic countries and related issues
4. Tle585 16:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC) for creation of a serious, academic discussion of the topics avoiding romantacism and nationalist bias, other than that discussed as an issue in the articles.
5. Gabhala 18:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Lurker (talk · contribs)
7. Sigurd Dragon Slayer 05:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Æetlr Creejl 19:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 02:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Easternknight

Comments

1. Saw your note advertising this. To be honest I am too busy to devote anything other than cursory attention to it at present, but I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Scottish Islands. I toyed with the idea and the advice was that there were probably too few editors to keep it going. Perhaps in the long run there will prove to be the case, but just creating it it seems to have co-ordinated and galvanised support. There are now umpteen project pages, 500 WPSI banners, over 100 infoboxes etc. etc. - and we only started in July. Check it out at WP:ISLE. If you know of at least two other editors keenly interested in your project my suggestion is - just go for it. If it is interesting and dynamic it will attract attention. Good luck. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
2. IMHO, there are 2 subjects : 1. the historical Celtic area and civilization, 2. the revival in the XIXth century, which is still "in progress" (see the recent attitude of Galicia and Asturias in Spain about their Celtic roots). I am more likely (and more competent) to contribute in articles devoted to the modern meaning of the Celtic World. Gwalarn 11:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
3. I like this idea, but would looking at the confused and frequently innaccurate entry for the Celt page, I will note I am only interested if we can keep this up to a certain level of respectibility --Tle585 16:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

reply If you can delineate what specifically the pitfalls and potholes are, together we can come up with standards to either aim for or adhere to, and make that part of the goals of the new Project. Thanks all for what you'll bring to the proverbial table! Chris 02:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm involved in othetr stuff, but will try to contribute. Lurker (said · done) 12:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
2. I think the current activity on the talk page of the Celts article, warrants a project page. The implications of redefining "Celt" have a huge impact on more than just that particular page. For example, the "Celtic Christianity" page would be affected profoundly.Gabhala 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there is enough interest to at least set up this group as a task force of some other project. Trying to think of which group would be appropriate is rather difficult, though maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups might come closest. Have you thought of contacting them regarding the possibility of setting up as a task force? John Carter 15:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• You mention Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales, but you fail to mention the rest of England. Perhaps you could avoid talking specifically of 'Celts', about whom there is much disagreement, and somehow use the word 'Celtic' instead. One thing there can be no doubt about is that many peoples were certainly influenced by Celtic culture and languages. --Mal 19:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign in) 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

England is not really a 'Celtic' nation in any sense of the word (even genetically as there isn't such a thing as a Celtic gene). The area itself used to belong to Celtic speaking/cultured people but that was before England as a political entity existed...it was founded by Germanic tribes who either 'wiped out' or mixed with the native inhabitants but imposed a Germanic culture and language on the nation none the less. Scotland, Wales...etc...are Celtic because as entities they were founded by the 'Celts' and/or have cultures derived for that old culture. There is (despite what many Wikipedians think) nothing wrong with Germanic culture or England being Germanic and certainly nothing wrong with being Celtic or for that matter with the British (as in the inhabitants of the British Islands) being pretty diverse genetically, culturally and linguistically (even when it comes to the various 'Celtic' peoples). Sigurd Dragon Slayer 05:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments added to archived discussion after project went live

Actually, the Celts of Britain do have a gene. It's the R1b y-chromosome. In fact, England is mostly Celtic, genetically. The German invaders did sunbjugate them, but did not wipe them out or mix very much, although they did impose their culture and language. There is a sizable group of linguists, though, that maintain that English has a very Celtic grammar. Overall, I would say England is Celtic. -G.T.N.

• Project is now active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Celts. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A very important Celtic page (Hen Ogledd) has a much better Welsh version. I was wondering if anyone could translate it? ---G.T.N. (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

template

I thought about also using Image:Celtic round dogs.svg instead, does anyone have a better idea? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Our fellow French project uses Image:Lindisfarne StJohn Knot2 3.svg Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Celtic music

I have no idea if you folks are interested, but there are more than 200 users listed in this category. You may be able to recruit some of them as members. —Viriditas | Talk 22:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

concerns of scope

I am somewhat concerned with the "ethnic" Wikiprojects springing up lately, in as much as they seem to have difficulties defining their scope and seem informed by mystical notions of a timeless "ethnic essence". This doesn't bode well. Reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Assyria is instructive: it's essentially a meeting-place for crackpot ethnic nationalists with an agenda. I am also not surprised to read things like "the Celts of Britain do have a gene" on this very talkpage. The project's scope, "The Celtic culture(s), which have influenced literature, farming, navigation and so much of European life, for 4,000 years" is, to put it bluntly, bullshit. Proto-Celtic dates to about 1000 BC at the earliest. There were no "Celtic culture(s)" in 2000 BC, not to mention literature(!), navigation(?) or anything that could be summarized as "European life". This reeks of unreflected national mysticism tinged with Neo-Raphaelite-cum-Wiccan Romanticism. Now, there is nothing wrong with having a project focussing on Celtic languages, cultures and history. But please don't turn this into yet another article-tagging pissing contest. Please be very clear that this project does have topical daughter projects, and list them prominently on the project page. Thus, any article tagged as within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland or Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland will not also need to be tagged as an article of WikiProject Celts. WikiProjects Medieval Scotland and Ireland are logical daughter projects of this one, and slapping a "Celts" tag on every article related to medieva Scotland will be redundant template clutter. I would also welcome a change of title to a less presumtive one, such as "Celtic cultures" or "Celtic studies". I draw your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies: this is, of course, another bias-pushing focus group, which would more adequately be termed "Wikiproject gay rights", but at least they have the sensibility to call themselves "LGBT studies", which is a valid subject. If you call this project "Celtic studies", you'll also have a valid academic discipline as a standard to rally around. If individual editors must push mysticist nonsense, no WikiProject is going to prevent them, but at least their agenda won't be built-in so to speak. dab (𒁳) 11:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. Anyone have any problem with it? If not, let's go ahead and make the change. ---G.T.N. (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a very good idea indeed. Also, by the same token that articles on more specific topics (like Medieval Scotland) should not be tagged with the WikiProject Celts/Celtic Studies tag, articles on more general topics should not be tagged with highly specific WikiProject tags. (I just removed the tag for WikiProject Northern Ireland from Talk:Celtic languages.) —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The creator of the project created it on the basis of a similarly named French WikiProject. Having said that, I too can see that there might be very clear overlaps and possibly conflicts with other projects. The best way to proceed would be to define as clearly as possible what the real intentions of the project are. Does the project intend to focus on all things Celtic, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism describes itself as relating to all content which relates to Judaism, or is it going to focus on the historicity of the ethnicity group, or the cultural accoutrements of the group, or whatever? Such a clearer definition, and possibly creation of categories to use for those articles if required, would probably be very useful. I certainly can see the creation of a potential "parent" project for any number of other related projects, but don't see that this project would necessarily likely become one such. On that basis, a fairly clear statement of the specific focus of the project might be useful. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a four-day-old Project, in which all members are welcome to define and redefine what our scope should be. But you can do that without being insulting and without using bullshit, reeks, pissing contest, nonsense, and so on. I have no agenda or point of view, I just wanted to see this topic represented with a Project, and was writing off the top of my head. You folks are more expert than I in many areas. I'm always willing to listen, and I was just the guy who got here first, I'm not the president or anything. But you don't have to be ugly while you're saying it. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

condensed off topic tangent From someone who called those mentioning on your talkpage that you should not place your banner outside existing "nests", and should not tag Project talk pages, "whining", that is a remarkable comment! Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC) The rules on my talkpage are clear and unambiguous. The rules here are just being set up. I see you are still not getting the message, just as you did not get on my talkpage, which is why I'm trying to set ground rules here early. Now are you here to participate or complain? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC) The "rules" on your talkpage (just added, after my comment) certainly are clear and unambiguous, but you don't set the rules here. I am here commenting on dab's complaint. I certainly don't need this project to participate on Celtic subjects - the question of whether anybody does remains to be answered, but I wish it well. Frankly I don't recall ever seeing you on any Celtic-related pages, but there we go; there are some quality participants. At the moment the only effect of the project has been to cause a lot of people who watch pages effort to sort out inappropriately added banners, but no doubt things will improve. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

please don't interpret my comment as hostile. It isn't a 'complaint' as such, but a suggestion, and a warning of recurring pitfalls. I have no doubt in everybody's good faith here. I am just, well, advising you to think about these points and avoid the pitfalls where possible. I have seen a number of Wikiprojects that ended up doing more harm than good, and I honestly hope this won't be one of those. Nor am I suggesting it appears particularly likely it will. Thanks, dab (𒁳) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dbachmann, and sorry if I misread the tone. But it was a good kickoff to how we want to set the tone for the group, so it all works out, thanks! :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

making this "Wikiproject Celtic studies"

So, any objections to making this "Wikiproject Celtic studies"? dab (𒁳) 09:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Far from it. 'Celtic studies' would be a good idea. Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

appeal to Dbachmann

You're obviously very passionate and knowledgeable about all this, so join up and help ensure this takes a positive scholarly direction! I promise we'll have a better chance of avoiding the pitfalls you mentioned once you do. :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I assure you this is what I have been actively trying to accomplish on Wikipedia for more than three years now. I did mention the pitfalls so you do have a chance of avoiding them  :) dab (𒁳) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you have a framework here, and we'd be happy to have you! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

and I am happy to have "you", the framework. Look, I have some 6,000 articles on my watchlist (includes many redirects though). It would be pointless to add myself to every Wikiproject that 'claims' an article I am involved with. Wikiprojects are a good thing if they are actively maintained. If they aren't, they do no harm, but they just tend to gather dust. I will be very pleased to see this turns out to be one of the useful ones. dab (𒁳) 18:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mythology

I thought you ought to know that pre-Dal Riadan Scottish mythology, what there was of it, was the same as Welsh mythology. Or I should say, Welsh mythology was the same as pre-Dal Riada Scottish. Wales was actually settled by the Scottish people. Then the invasion changed things, so what is labeled "Scottish mythology" is actually a mix of Welsh and Irish mythology, with some Pictish (if there is a great difference), all considerably watered down. ---G.T.N. (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hen Ogledd Wikiproject

I have proposed a new Wikiproject on Y Hen Ogledd, the Old North of sub-roman Britain. This is highly relevant to the Celts, and I would like to here your comments on the idea. ---G.T.N. (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a bit narrow in scope to me. A WikiProject on sub-Roman Britain, taking in the Britons, Saxons, Picts, Scots, the Celtic church and so on might be a better idea - it would include all the Old North material, but put it in context. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I think I'll do that. I'd really been starting to consider that myself.---G.T.N. (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A sub-Roman Britain project sounds interesting – it'll be a tad out of my area of expertise, unfortunately. But shouldn't it be ‘Yr Hen Ogledd’? It would be in modern Welsh, at any rate. Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that said before, and unfortunately I've forgotten where I got that spelling. It might be Old Welsh or Brythonic, I'm not sure. Hey, if you know anything about Sub-Roman Britain, I'd be glad for your help. As it is, noone seems interested, despite the number of people in related fields. ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Roman Britain Wikiproject

Allright! I've proposed the Sub-Roman Britain Wikiproject, and am inviting you all, again, to join the new-and-improved Hen Ogledd idea. ---G.T.N. (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This proposal has been changed to a taskforce in European history. Come check it out and sign up if you like it! ---G.T.N. (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Celtic Tribal Origins

There are several Celtic tribes which live in multiple places, but could be of the same origin, such as the Atrebatae, Damnoni, Cornovi, and Brigantes. Is there enough information on their origins to do an article on the tribe as a whole with subsections on the individual branches? If so, I think it would be a better idea than doing all the separate ones. ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Celts as Barbarians

The WikiProject Celts has recently been made a daughter project of WikiProject Barbarians, with the Huns and Germanic peoples likely to be added soon. Is the WikiProject Celts board cooperating with WikiProject Barbarians? Does it intend to do so in the future? —Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like WP:Barbarians was deleted, so, moot. For the record, no, I would not have supported becoming a "daughter project". I'm only interested in WP:CELTS in how it relates to Irish and Scottish Gaelic cultures. And though I know "barbarian" is a neutral or even positive term to some, to others it's an insult, so I'd rather just not go there. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Kathryn. While from a historic Roman or Greek (especially) perspective, the Celts would certainly have been included under the term, the modern meaning is much too subjective. That said, however, I would like to see an umbrella project covering the contemporary tribal cultures of Europe, and the contrasts and similarities between them.Gabhala (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A good idea, though it will take time to implement. FYI: There is a WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies currently under construction. If all goes as planned there, the Celtic studies WikiProject would definitely be considered a 'sibling project'. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 22:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea to make it a sibling project to Ancient Germanic studies as both ethnic groups inhabited the same sphere of ancient Europe for a long time and thus their histories are somewhat entwined. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible sibling project?

WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies has identified WikiProject Celts as a potential sibling project, and would like to list it as such on its project page. Comments from the members of this project would be appreciated. Thanks. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Irish people GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Irish people and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are multiple issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article and other related WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 366 articles are assigned to this project, of which 110, or 30.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=WikiProject Celts}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd edits at Celtic nations

Heading says it all, really... see details at Talk:Celtic nations#Dubious edits?. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A general comment

Please read my article on The Morrigan - Discussion. It (11. The Moon) contains general viewpoints on all the Wiki articles about the Celtic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morr%C3%ADgan Dandru13 (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Celts

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Celtic polytheism massacre

The Celtic polytheism article has been spiralling out of control for quite a while now. Today I checked in to find that someone well-meaning, but not overly familiar with the subject, has been making sweeping changes, including page moves and branching new articles off. I don't know how much time I'm going to have to address this, but we really, really need more experienced eyes on this. HELP. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:56, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Complete rewrite of Cornish people

User:Jza84 has proposed a complete rewrite of the Cornish people article. If you agree, disagree, want to help write a new article, or want to improve the existing one, please join the discussion at Talk:Cornish people#Rewritten completely?. --Joowwww (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that I plan to overright the Cornish people article with this draft very soon. That is, unless there is objection? If there is, please direct it at Talk:Cornish people. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Cornish language orthography articles

I have proposed that Kernewek Kemmyn, Kernowek Standard, Modern Cornish and Unified Cornish be merged into one article at Cornish orthography. Please discuss, support or oppose the proposal here. --Kernoweger (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems at Triple Goddess

Some time over the winter a couple of editors changed this article from an overview of Triple Goddesses in various cultures into an article about Wicca. There is now a badly-done dumping ground where some of the excised material got forked to: Triple deities. I think this is biased and misleading. As it stands right now, culturally-specific articles about triple Goddesses, which linked to the earlier version of the page, now go to a misleading definition (the Maiden, Mother, Crone concept of Graves/Wicca). While the current Triple Goddess article is good for what it is - an article about a Wiccan concept - it is inaccurately named. I propose renaming it to Triple Goddess (Wicca) and making Triple Goddess a disambig page with links to both the Wiccan article and the one on Triple deities. The disambig could possibly also list Triple Goddesses from specific cultures. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

British history: where is it?

Come on WikiProject Celts, why is Britons (historical) so poor an article? It's hardly changed in over 12 months. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ross Daly

Created a page for Ross Daly which is an Irish musician. Anyone likes to help. Kasaalan (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)