User talk:Mabuska/Archive 42011/February

Reviewer permission

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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was 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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edit

Not sure here, did you mean to readd the word major? [1] Gnevin (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I mean the usage of the phrase "became the major" is highly subjective unless its backed up by the relevant sources. I do think you may have went overboard on the citation needed tags though. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Onetonycousins wants them so I've added them and per the article talk page I will be removing them shortly unless improvements are made Gnevin (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No probs. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Tullyhogue

I noticed that you have added a fact-tag a while ago to the Irish name given here. There are plenty of references available that the middle Irish name was Tulach Óc, including one cited from Tullyhogue Fort. Not sure if that helps if it is the (presumably) modern form Tulaigh Óg that needs verification, just thought I'd mention it. All the best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt its correct, but the IMoS in regards to place origins requires sources just to back up the spelling and the meaning as there are at times conflicting spellings and meanings given in sources. The modern Irish form is fine for the infobox, however the lede should have the middle Irish form you provided as the English name would more or less be derived from it rather than the modern Irish spelling. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough the cite for the Irish name in Tullyhogue Fort doesn't backup the Irish name given. It backs up the meaning, but it gives a different spelling. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't notice that. Non-initial C was pronounced as G, but "fixing" the spelling is probably not what editors of Wikipedia should be doing. I've got an additional source for middle irsh "Tulach Óc" - we could use that or the form "Telach Oc" in the source already added, and leave out modern forms I suppose. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Tullyhogue more likely derives from Tulach Óc/Telach Oc rather than newer Tulaigh Óg so it would be the correct one to use for the articles lede. The infobox doesn't need the derived origin as it lists modern alternative names for places, so it should keep "Tulaigh Óg" in it. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I added an additional reference and went with Tulach Óc - I think Francis John Byrne is likely to have gotten the spelling correct (though any mediaeval Irish name would most likely be attested with some twenty variants in spelling). Not sure if you mean that the modern Irish name can remain without citation in the infobox, so I left the {{cn}}-tag there. Isn't there, btw, some "official list" of modern Gaelic placenames somewhere, or are there only official names in gaeltacht areas?? Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Logainm is usually used, however it lists Tullyhogue a "Tullyhog" and doesn't provide any Gaelic name for it yet, and as its not a townland it also doesn't appear over at PlaceNames NI. The place name books by Queens University would state it but i have no access to that volume. This useful source doesn't cover Cookstown District yet.

Can these be considered reliable? [2] and [3].

I assume this is a piss take on Tullyhogue.

I assume Doomesday is reliable enough for the modern name, no names names there seem to be given with diacritics though so it would be "Tulaigh Óg", not "Tulaigh Óg"... If all minor details in Wikipedia had received as much attention as this one we would have produced an extremely good encyclopaedia :) A bit ironic as the rest of the article is neither sourced nor very informative, but I tend to get fixed on details... Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough i have just tidied up the Tullyhogue Fort article lol. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm planning to write a Norwegian version (probably in one article, with the Tullyhogue Fort-stuff in a history-section), but was reluctant as I felt I had to do most "from scratch" - you just saved me a lot of work :) (I sent you an e-mail btw) Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem! The article needed an overhaul so i thought i'd get stuck in at it. For an article on what i'd assume to be a high importance article in terms of medieval Irish history, i was amazed at the state it was in. Thanks for the email by the way! Mabuska ^(talk) 16:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

While there are some really good stuff on Irish medieval history, there are also lot's of stuff missing, perhaps specially related to the northern parts of the island. I can't help thinking that Irish editors often get stuck discussing "British Isles", "Republic of", "status of Northern Ireland" and such on talk pages - both time consuming and also somewhat discouraging to some I think. Northern Uí Néill is still a red link, even though that dynasty ruled the northern part of Ireland for nearly a thousand years. If nobody beats me to it I'll translate no:Nordlige Uí Néill one of these days. (If the mailprovider is up to the task you should have received another e-mail) Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Many Irish editors are more concerned about the politics than anything else and in fact just seem to edit on those lines alone. A Northern Uí Néill article should be created and i can help in it, however they never ruled the northern part of Ireland for nearly a thousand years or anything like that. They ruled most of Ulster at one stage but never for more than a couple of centuries and that itself was quite late on in the medieval period. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Granted, I'll rephrase myself to (one of) the most powerful dynasties in the northern parts of Ireland (island) (though they rarely controlled more than the western parts of Northern Ireland, and the middle only through subordinating the Airgíalla). It's interesting that most of our written sources are made under Uí Néill influence, and the Ulaid (and Munster) may have been more powerful in early history than the Uí Néill "synthetic historians" allowed for- political propaganda isn't a modern invention :) All the more reason to write that article - I might just take you up on that offer of assistance. Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a pity the scribes of the early medieval era did such inventing. Virtually all of the conquered clans and septs where given doctored genealogies to link them all to Niall of the Nine Hostages the forebear of the Northern Ui Neill so that the conquered could be given a sense of kindred to their conqueror. The ancient might of the Ulaid is attested to in various sources, though some sources downplay or overlook them entirely as it is questionable as to whether or not they are actually Gaelic. Its a pity it was the Normans who essentially finished Ulaid off.

I'll help anyways lol :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 23:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Dillon, Myles, "The consecration of Irish kings", in Celtica 10 (1973): 1–8.
• FitzPatrick, Elizabeth, "An Tulach Tinóil"
• FitzPatrick, Elizabeth, Royal Inauguration in Gaelic Ireland c. 1100–1600: A Cultural Landscape Study. Boydell Press. 2004.
• Mitchel, John, The Life and Times of Aodh O'Neill, Prince of Ulster. New York: Excelsior Catholic Publishing House. 1879.
• Nicholls, K. W., Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle Ages. Dublin: Lilliput Press. 2nd edition, 2003.

You will especially want FitzPatrick (2004). Princes/chieftains is a non-issue and just depends on the convention. DinDraithou (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"but that's not a very good source for this kind of article" - The author of the Tullyhogue Fort section of the Oxford companion is Dr. Hiram Morgan, lecturer of history at University College, Cork. What makes him any less reliable than the authors of your sources?

Is the coronoation stone not called the Leac na Ri as oppossed to Leac na Flaith which would be its name it was for the crowning of princes? According to an article you yourself have heavily edited, does it not state that chief is "very often technically" a Ri? Anyways regardless of that i'd rather use the term used by the source - and as prince and chief are interchangable and a non-issue as you suggest there is no problem with doing so.

I don't want a pointless fight with you and got a little miffed because you reverted all three of my contributions in that edit without looking. So I source-bombed you, and now you're tag-bombing me. It's all stupid. On the king/prince/chief/chieftain business it's really all a mess and depends on the context. The English of the period usually referred to one as a Captain of his Nation and a major one might be styled a dux. Who knows when chief and chieftain became common. DinDraithou (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the more heated aspects of our posts seeing as they serve no purpose. I only added two tags to two articles that had real issues. Hardly revenge or tag-bombing as i've added tags to many articles lacking inline citations, especially about Irish mythology. I also added WikiProject tags to their talk-pages which is good tagging. I actually forgot about List of Irish clans in Ulster and have been meaning to get it up to standards and actually finished as its nowhere near it - i move from project to project just as you get bored easily with one. I do appreciate the sources, however i couldn't tell whether or not you where shoving it in my face and trying to impose your viewpoint, especially going by the wording of your edit summary. If you feel i was being rude, i apologise and meant no harm, i also got miffed to what i saw as the same from yourself. It is all a bit pointless and over the top from both of us. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize too. I'm well known for my short temper. I actually thought you were telling me to gtfo of your article with that revert and felt I had to respond in a way showing I know something about it. In fact I haven't even looked at all those sources but just happen to know they're the good ones. I know this and that about it but probably no more than you in total. As far as the articles I've gotten bored with some do indeed look like that's what's happened. But you'll find that many of my others are sourced much, much better. I should go through my creations and create a list on my userpage of the ones I don't plan on returning to and need the attentions of others. Tomrair mac Ailchi is an example. Please return to your list of Ulster clans because it doesn't even have wikilinks to a lot of articles that exist already and so it isn't serving the world or the project much purpose right now, when it could be very useful. DinDraithou (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I know you know a good deal about this stuff, and on the revert i can't remember exactly what happened but when i hit restore or revert i don't think i realised there was three edits being reverted. As far as i'm aware i thought i only reverted the "princes" bit, but no i longer clearly remember.

On List of Irish clans in Ulster, i think that was the first article i created, and well i've created over 100 since and just haven't got back round to it, and think it is probably the only one lacking proper inline citations. In fact i intend to split it into several smaller articles based on the main groups as it will be too long when near finished and could be quite unwieldy in one article. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

By kindred and sept? That makes sense. I've started that list now for which go to User:DinDraithou#You can help. DinDraithou (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Would be good idea to post that to do list at the WikiProject Ireland to do list. Yeah i was gonna divide along the lines of Northern Ui Neill, Airgialla, Ulaid etc. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)