Slatersteven (talk | contribs) |
Provide diffs or move along, thanks |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
:Thank you for the kind greetings, Ealdgyth. A fine Yuletide to you and yours. :) [[User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox#top|talk]]) 16:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
:Thank you for the kind greetings, Ealdgyth. A fine Yuletide to you and yours. :) [[User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox#top|talk]]) 16:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
:: Thank you ... hubby and I will be celebrating Yule for him later in the month... [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 17:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
:: Thank you ... hubby and I will be celebrating Yule for him later in the month... [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 17:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
== PA's == |
|||
LAy of the ad homonies, arguments based upon attaching eds credibility or integrity are generally downed upon, please stop [[wp:npa]].[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 20:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:10, 18 December 2018
Template:Archive box collapsible
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Muspelheim Edit
Hey there Bloodofox,
I'm fairly new to wikipedia. So I apologize if this isn't the best way to get in contact with you, but I was really curious about your recent edit to the Muspelheim page. I'm a student editor for the page, and based on my research. A good bit of the information there was fairly accurate. Has new information come to light or is a total rewrite just necessary? I just wanted to make sure I'm not adding bad information when I do contribute. Rvayyy (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Rvayyy. The material I've removed consisted of numerous issues. For example, there are no "prophecies" in the Prose Edda (nor anywhere else in the Old Norse corpus), the concept of the Nine Worlds requires discussion and context, nowhere in the corpus are Surtr or Sinmara said to "rule over" anything, and so on. The rest of the article remains unreferenced beyond the shallow etymology. The article simply needs to be rewritten from scratch. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, Bloodofox. Thanks for your explanation. It really makes a lot of sense after reading it. I'll try and be more careful with reading and editing articles in the futrue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvayyy (talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Glad to help. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, Bloodofox. Thanks for your explanation. It really makes a lot of sense after reading it. I'll try and be more careful with reading and editing articles in the futrue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvayyy (talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Categories
Krakkos emptied and redirected two categories on July 1: Scholars of Old Norse and Scandinavian studies and Ancient Germanic history and culture. I have done my best to repair the damage; I found one Scandinavian studies scholar who had been wrongly placed in the Old Norse category, and I changed around the subcategorization with reference to archaeology. But the religion material appears to have already been removed from the history and culture category, and there may be other problems that need resolving with reference to that category. Could you please look at the categorization in that latter area and fix anything I haven't fixed, or have fixed wrongly? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Yngvadottir. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll give it a look over and see what I can do. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- I must add that the emptying was the result of a careful consideration:
- Scholars of Old Norse and Scandinavian studies was emptied and redirected to Scandinavian studies scholars. We don't need two categories on Scandinavian studies scholars. With the current titles, the two categories overlap heavily, and as a result of the confusion, people like Paul Du Chaillu and Rudolf Keyser are wrongly listed as Old Norse scholars. Likewise, Peter Andreas Munch and Gustav Storm were primarily historians rather than Old Norse scholars. Bertha Phillpotts is in turn listed as a Scandinavian scholar in general, though her specialty was linguistics. Perhaps Scholars of Old Norse and Scandinavian studies could be changed to Old Norse scholars. In any regards, Scholars of Old Norse are generally either Scandinavian studies scholars or Germanic philologists. We should find a way to distinguish between them.
- Ancient Germanic history and culture was emptied and transferred to Germanic history and Germanic culture. These categories have sister categories in multiple other languages and are well integrated within the category tree. Wikipedia generally doesn't have combined "history and culture" categories, making Ancient Germanic history and culture hard to integrate within the category tree. As a result, that category is now wrongly made a subcategory of Germanic tribes (which is a container category for individual tribes). Strangely, no connection to the Germanic history and Germanic culture is made.
- I encourage you, Bloodofox, to take a look at the changes made. It should be apparent that the changes made back in July were not damaging at all. The recent changes made were done hastily within one our, and many of them are in my opinion unfortunate.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] And Yngvadottir, feel free to ping me the next time you wish do discuss my edits. Krakkos (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Krakkos: I did not contact you because it was quite plain this was a unilateral decision on your part (no links to discussions in your edit summaries, nothing on your talk page), without discussion dumping scholars of medieval (and pre-medieval) society and culture into a category for those who study the modern Scandinavian countries, their current politics and economics, and their relatively recent history. They are distinct disciplines and yes, we need distinct categories. (I note that you were distant enough from the topics that you initially redirected the Old Norse scholars to something Anatolian). Germanic philology is far broader linguistically, including as it does the other branches of the Germanic languages, while being more narrowly focused in that it deals with language and not, for example, with archaeology. On the history and culture, I suspect that you or someone else has previously reordered that category, but there needs to be a category that includes both archaeology, the history and culture of the tribes, and the preserved literature and religion/"mythology". That's why I brought it to Bloodofox asking him to check my work and pointing to the religion's having apparently been split out, because unlike you, he knows the spheres of study. I'm sure you do good work in keeping the categories neat in other fields, but in these fields you made inappropriate decisions that I am glad I stumbled upon, and took up hours of my time attempting to fix. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir: I'm sorry to hear that your hours were spent on this. However, next time you accuse editors of being "distant enough from the topics", i recommend you spend additional time to provide diffs. I did indeed redirect Category:Scholars of Old Norse and Scandinavian studies to Category Anatolian peoples.[8] This was a technical mistake which i corrected minutes later.[9] If you sincerely think that i believe Old Norse scholars and Anatolian peoples are equivalent, then it is no wonder you suspect the changes i have made to Germanic categories have been damaging. A review of the changes will show that that the changes have been helpful. This has been discussed before.[10] Religion has not been "split out". It is contained at Germanic paganism, which is a subcategory of Category:Germanic culture, just like Category:Germanic languages and Germanic archaeology. Category:Germanic history has its own category. This is the way categories for other ethnolinguistic groups are organized on Wikipedia, and i see no reason why we should make an exception for Germanic peoples. WP:CONSISTENCY matters. Krakkos (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hello folks, sorry for the delay in my response on this. I had to do some digging around to see exactly what's going on. This is one of those situations where I wish we could hash this out with voices rather than via a wiki messaging system. I understand your frustration. Now, we're in deep academic territory with this material, and we have considerable leverage to use technical terms where necessary. I think I'm still a bit confused after reading this discussion: Rather than the three of us wrestling with the wiki's archaic category-building and editing system and yielding lots of frustrating wasted time, what do you recommend we do to solve this situation moving forward? :bloodofox: (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Recognize that Norse is a different field of studies from "Scandinavian studies" and that expertise is sometimes required. There was no discussion before these unwise effacings of useful categories, so I attempted to revert them (while checking that scholars had not been initially placed in the wrong one). Yngvadottir (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- I fully agree with the recommendation of Yngvadottir. In order to clearly distinguish between Scandinavian studies scholars and Scholars of Old Norse and Scandinavian studies, it might be aalso be good idea to simplify the title of the latter to Scholars of Old Norse. Krakkos (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- "Old Norse studies" would be better than simply "Old Norse": these are scholars of ancient/medieval literature and culture, not simply of language. But even that, I think, is going to suggest to some readers that it's just studies of the language. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- It looks like we've got a way forward with this, folks. These corners always need more attention, and I'm really glad we have active users handling this stuff. So many other related corners of the site seem to grow increasingly derelict. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- "Old Norse studies" would be better than simply "Old Norse": these are scholars of ancient/medieval literature and culture, not simply of language. But even that, I think, is going to suggest to some readers that it's just studies of the language. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- I fully agree with the recommendation of Yngvadottir. In order to clearly distinguish between Scandinavian studies scholars and Scholars of Old Norse and Scandinavian studies, it might be aalso be good idea to simplify the title of the latter to Scholars of Old Norse. Krakkos (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Recognize that Norse is a different field of studies from "Scandinavian studies" and that expertise is sometimes required. There was no discussion before these unwise effacings of useful categories, so I attempted to revert them (while checking that scholars had not been initially placed in the wrong one). Yngvadottir (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hello folks, sorry for the delay in my response on this. I had to do some digging around to see exactly what's going on. This is one of those situations where I wish we could hash this out with voices rather than via a wiki messaging system. I understand your frustration. Now, we're in deep academic territory with this material, and we have considerable leverage to use technical terms where necessary. I think I'm still a bit confused after reading this discussion: Rather than the three of us wrestling with the wiki's archaic category-building and editing system and yielding lots of frustrating wasted time, what do you recommend we do to solve this situation moving forward? :bloodofox: (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir: I'm sorry to hear that your hours were spent on this. However, next time you accuse editors of being "distant enough from the topics", i recommend you spend additional time to provide diffs. I did indeed redirect Category:Scholars of Old Norse and Scandinavian studies to Category Anatolian peoples.[8] This was a technical mistake which i corrected minutes later.[9] If you sincerely think that i believe Old Norse scholars and Anatolian peoples are equivalent, then it is no wonder you suspect the changes i have made to Germanic categories have been damaging. A review of the changes will show that that the changes have been helpful. This has been discussed before.[10] Religion has not been "split out". It is contained at Germanic paganism, which is a subcategory of Category:Germanic culture, just like Category:Germanic languages and Germanic archaeology. Category:Germanic history has its own category. This is the way categories for other ethnolinguistic groups are organized on Wikipedia, and i see no reason why we should make an exception for Germanic peoples. WP:CONSISTENCY matters. Krakkos (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Krakkos: I did not contact you because it was quite plain this was a unilateral decision on your part (no links to discussions in your edit summaries, nothing on your talk page), without discussion dumping scholars of medieval (and pre-medieval) society and culture into a category for those who study the modern Scandinavian countries, their current politics and economics, and their relatively recent history. They are distinct disciplines and yes, we need distinct categories. (I note that you were distant enough from the topics that you initially redirected the Old Norse scholars to something Anatolian). Germanic philology is far broader linguistically, including as it does the other branches of the Germanic languages, while being more narrowly focused in that it deals with language and not, for example, with archaeology. On the history and culture, I suspect that you or someone else has previously reordered that category, but there needs to be a category that includes both archaeology, the history and culture of the tribes, and the preserved literature and religion/"mythology". That's why I brought it to Bloodofox asking him to check my work and pointing to the religion's having apparently been split out, because unlike you, he knows the spheres of study. I'm sure you do good work in keeping the categories neat in other fields, but in these fields you made inappropriate decisions that I am glad I stumbled upon, and took up hours of my time attempting to fix. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy Saturnalia
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
- Thank you for the kind greetings, Ealdgyth. A fine Yuletide to you and yours. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)