Talk:Gallaecia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Galicia Galicia Portal This article is part of WikiProject Galicia which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to Galician history, language and culture. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details. WikiProject Spain Spain Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. WikiProject Portugal     (Rated B-Class) Portugal Portal Gallaecia is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance for this Project's importance scale. Portugal To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Portugal Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list Former countries WikiProject  This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.

Contents 1 Formatting 2 Celtic Gallaecia 3 Gallaecian language 4 Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia

[edit] Formatting

The text is "wrapped" around the small square Table of Context box in order to avoid ugly gaping holes of blank space. In this particular instance the ToC is at the right because at the left it breaks up the indented lines of quotation. Try alternatives yourself and see the effect . There is currently an editor going about making a mess of carefully formatted articles to satisfy some obscure personal agenda. --Wetman 21:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not obscure or personal, it was the overwhelming feeling of the VfD discussion for this template. The whitespace generated by a four item Table of Contents is is no way a problem for the layout of any article, let alone this one. There is a reason for the default TOC being as it is, if most people found it ugly it certainly wouldn't be the default. There is no way TOCright or TOCleft are justified for a four item TOC. Saying "every sensible adult" would support its use on these pages is certainly not the case, most sensible adults were and are against its use except as a last resort for long TOCs, and the majority of sensible adults continue using the default TOC in their articles. If you wish to go on abusing this template by using it where it is not remotely neccesary, you may be turning those who voted to keep it as a last resort off it altogether. Joe D (t) 21:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

(This is discussed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#July_30 A good reason for avoiding creating too many "Guidelines" at Wikipedia is the usage doctrinaire simpletons will make of them. Look at the mess made of this entry without wrapping the TOC! ) --Wetman 22:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You think it looks a mess without a floating TOC? Well I guess we have to change the defalt layout if Wetman doesn't it, never mind the majority of Wikipedia users who have no problem whatsoever with the default TOC. This has nothing to do with dogmatically sticking to the rules, but the fact that the rules in this case make for a better Wikipedia: short floating TOCs do not make the page look better, and often make it look worse, as is the case here. And I'd hardly call your post at Wikiquette alerts a "discussion", it responds to none of the points in the OP, bit if you carry on, the ad hominens will look nice in an RfC. Joe D (t) 23:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

(The above "Joe D" is User:Steinsky, needless to say. There is no such "rule" about formatting. A default TOC is merely that: it has no magical value. --Wetman 23:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC))

Then call them "guidelines", either way, they reflect the discussions and votes of the Wikipedia community. Though I don't know why I'm bothering to state that again, since Wetman (author of the above message, incase you needed to be patronised some more) refuses to acknowledge that his idea of good formatting isn't shared by everyone on Wikipedia, and will continue to pretend this post never happened. I'm going to bed, g'night. Joe D (t) 00:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the History of Portugal template because I think there should only be one template. It crowds the page. The Galician one is more relevant I think. --Revolución (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Did someone put it back? I agree with you 100%. It crowds the page too much, and it really doesn't add any information. --dannycas 02:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What?!?!!? --Pedro 13:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In trying to unjumble the format and accomodate both infoboxes, I've eliminated the map that doesn't show Gallaecia, and kept just the almost-identical map that does show Gallaecia. --Wetman 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic Gallaecia

Guys... something should be done about the article Celtic Gallaecia! The Ogre 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallaecian language

Guys... a new article about Gallaecian language should be started by someone who knows something about it! The Ogre 14:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia

Currently, the text of Prehistoric Spain seems really to be about prehistoric Iberia. Similarly, the text of Prehistoric Portugal seems really to be about the same thing. This would be perfectly understandable seeing as there was no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. I have argued therefore that it would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states. I have proposed the articles be merged and moved to Prehistoric Iberia. Please come and discuss the proposal. Jimp 09:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's good history. It's more encyclopedic. --Wetman 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with Pre-Roman Portugal? You see, Prehistoric Spain encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Should we merge them all? The Ogre 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Roman Portugal stays put without being affected; however, a condensed version becomes a section of Prehistoric Iberia with a Main article, see... standard header-link. Yes? --Wetman 15:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Say it to the world, please! Cheers. The Ogre 16:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)