User talk:Manannan67

Archives

Archive 1

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your edits and expansion of Saint Chrodegang! Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 17:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've edit all information that I could found about that painting. Please, can you control if this page could be good? Thank you. --82.56.171.191 (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philip II of Spain is depicted as King Solomon, Mary I of England as the Queen of Sheba, and Viglius van Aytta as a king's soldier. Then even the other king and queen's retinue could be depicted as Philip and Mary's related characters. Can you find if there are sources about it and their attires? Thank you! --79.44.235.74 (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can you find the English translation of the Latin text in the composition? Thank you! --80.182.55.164 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is going on? I see messages from three different IPs, most of whose edits have been largely disruptive. Mannanan51 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Your patience and diligence in cleaning up the wreck that occurred at Criticism of the Catholic Church are appreciated, and thank you for finally giving us a Criticism article, that has been missing since the 2008 days of the five Catholic Church FACs! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Really appreciate your commitment and contribution for Wikipidea Tudor Godwin (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Anglo-Saxon mission into Insular Monasticism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the reference to the first sentence "Anglo-Saxon missionaries were instrumental..." is fr Thurston in the CE article as indicated in footnote #36. The second sentence "Both Ecgberht of Ripon and Ecgbert of York were instrumental in the Anglo-Saxon mission...." I added to the A/S on April 24, 2019. It was not, however, copied to Insular Monasticism as the A/S mission section was rewritten almost entirely with five citations to various CE articles. I don't care about the attribution tag, but I generally add it myself whether or not it's material I first posted to the source. Manannan67 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. The same content appears in both articles, and that's what the bot found. Sorry for the mistake, you did cite the source and I did not notice. — Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for all of the work you've done today in rescuing refs in Gregory Peck! Schazjmd (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I left a note on the other editor's page explaining the problem she'd caused and how to avoid it in the future. Schazjmd (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was going to get to that after I located all the "invoked but not defined" citations. The article is very long, and I do not take issue with the removal of some of the film reviews, but I think I would have wished that the information had been moved to the relevant film rather than outright deleted. Some of it looked fairly articulate and well-sourced (not to mention the product of somebody's hard work). As I don't think it should be altogether lost, I will probably see how much I can recover for the appropriate pages. Btw, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Solstice, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanza, a Blessed Yule, or anything else you may be celebrating this time of year. Manannan67 (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if you interpreted my edit war warning as presumptuous, it was imply meant to head off an edit war and suggest that we go to the talk page. Please feel free to delete it if you wish. Achar Sva (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Papal States. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 05:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the cn tag: it did not appear that the information was all that controversial, the tag is seven years old at this point, and more than likely pertains to Kleinhenz's cite at the end of the paragraph. Although I suppose after this length of time I should probably have just deleted the sentence, regardless of how instructive.

• Re the sentence "For its first 300 years, within the Roman Empire the Catholic Church was..." You will note some discussion on the Talk page regarding the use of "Catholic Church" rather than "Christian". Indeed, this seems to be rationale for the "neutrality" tag at the head of the article. Since the Catholic and Orthodox didn't split until much later, those espousing the term "Christian" are quite correct. But I left it as I've got better things to do than get involved in pointless, contentious debates. Catholic/Christian were not consistently "persecuted" for the entire 300 years.
• The sentence "As central Roman authority disintegrated throughout the late 5th century,... appears to be grammatically incorrect as the word "both" implies someone/thing besides "the Church organization in Italy," but does not indicate what.
• The phrase beginning "The Eastern Roman Empire..." is not a coherent sentence absent a verb.
• The phrase "plus coastal exclaves" appears to be both something of an afterthought and an awkward construction. They are in addition to the Ravenna corridor, not a part of the so-called narrow band.
• -I would have thought the reasoning behind these minor adjustments were in each instance rather self-evident, but if you think your revert rendered the article more grammatical or over-all better, knock yourself out. Manannan67 (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Manannan67: First off, very little here is "self-evident", and if you had included an Edit Summary (or—even better—a Talk page entry) explaining your intentions, it's likely this would never have happened. Even a note like "Removed really old CN tag from non-controversial text." would have made a world of difference. I, too, have better things to do than engage in pointless arguments, so I try to always explain what I'm doing (and why) so my fellow editors won't have to waste time guessing. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 13:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is demonstrably self-evident is that the edit summary "not an improvement" is the subjective opinion of someone who either doesn't write very well or in their haste to revert never even bothered to check the items adjusted. You would have found that "both" connects to nothing at all, and another phrase doesn't even amount to a sentence. In no way did my edit remove any information or change the substance of the article. Rather than undoing the revert, you have now restored all those clumsy errors. Well done. Your edit was both pedantic and petty, and was "not an improvement" to the article. Manannan67 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to delete the the true Augustinian Ethos???

To what R U referring? Manannan67 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IM Talking about what you know you deleted. dont play dumb your messing with the wrong person i suggest you revert it back to what it said before. Who are you to delete such sacred and inspiring words. EAD and fix it or there will be a Problem

Apparently you are relatively recent to wikipedia and need to acquaint yourself with the process -like indenting your response, signing with four tildas, and avoiding making veiled threats. "Ethos" is directly addressed both under Charism in the Augustinians article and specifically on Augustinian nuns. As far as edits are concerned, they are briefly explained in the respective edit summary. Get back to me after you've learned the basic rules; -unless, of course, you're just here to troll. Manannan67 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So Why do you have to delete it... What gives you that right... That is something that should be known... sad for you you day will come... LOVE AND LIGHT>>>NXXTLVL<<<

Not very Augustinian of you; sounds like you need a nap. Manannan67 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Protector777, please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end of them, it makes following discussions much easier. Also, please do not imply something bad will happen to editors if you do not agree with something they have done. Thank you, Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 17:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC

So you still have yet to answer my question!??? What gives you the right to delete something like that. But I will see you. 2603:7081:4900:F1F6:9DE:24B9:6594:B6E4 (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will please note (1) the lengthy discussion on the Augustinians Talk page to the extent that it is totally disorganized; (2) that the page is still tagged for being too long. For the most part, I only sorted out some material among the various Augustinian articles. However, since there was quite a bit re-located you will have to be specific as to what exactly you think was deleted out of hand. I doubt very much that anything was removed that was adequately sourced. Manannan67 (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I should say hello because I've been watching Gothic Fiction for a long time while not feeling up to the task of rescuing what seemed like a very baggy, badly-organized article. Your edits have been wonderful and have inspired me to do a little poking at it. Especially when I'm messing with the structural elements, if you disagree with my approach please do just ignore/revert it -- I don't want to get in the way of your work! But if there are points where it would be helpful to have a second set of eyes or hands, feel free to ping me. Thanks for your work, the article is already very improved! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I like your edits. I found the article a little "all over the place" and tried to get it into a little bit better chronological order. I also wanted to identify the generic elements before its indicated how they were used by various writers. The article is still over 100k bytes and could be both trimmed with a link to the appropriate Main (particularly where there is excessive description of novels that have their own articles) or split (but I have no idea where). It also seems to slide a bit into Romanticism, which although related, figures more prominently in later works, I think. That's about where I m now. Feel free to improve it. (I was going to add a link to the Main French Revolution and the English Gothic Novel, but that looks like it needs a lot of work.) Cheers. Manannan67 (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits on this page but we are in a situation where we are slowing editing, enhancing, bringing balance and cleaning up the page. We agreed to bring edits we want to include or change to the talk page. Please do the same. Thank you. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Read the Talk page. Manannan67 (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youRed Rose 13 (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So are you willing to work in collaboration on this page? Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem whatsoever with collaborative effort, but I think we may have a different understanding of the term. "Neither one of us should have to ask permission to add well documented information to a page because no one "owns" a page." Manannan67 (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please explain why you reverted Andeolus? I used Wikisource versions of the references (which are public domain) rather than the newadvent.org versions of the same reference which contain advertising. regards, DivermanAU (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I figure about 1/3 of the cn tags I come across are by editors who cannot recognize a CE article even when it bears the template. The CE template indicates it's PD but doesn't give the author w/o additional adjustment, and a lot of CE articles don't even have that. The citation to New Advent automatically gives the author, which makes a difference if it's someone like Kirsch compared to somebody like Grattan-Flood. Adding the PD template flags that it's Public Domain. (I recently had a new article declined because the reviewer didn't notice.) Wikisource doesn't always give the sources; New Advent has links to related articles. I use both. By using New Advent with the CE wstitle template users can choose which version they want to read, -and everybody should be well-advised that it's PD. Manannan67 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi - please could you let me know what your reference is for Saint Werburgh being trained by Saint Chad. Many thanks 318HolyFathers (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Werburgh" by Dame Gertrude Casanova O.S.B. of Stanbrook Abbey. Manannan67 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi In October 2015 you put a note on this saying further references were required. It is quite a short article and it seems to me that pretty much every statement is referenced. I would like to remove the note. Could you look again?Aineireland (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done

I am not seeing where Ivo is mentioned in the source you provided. Do you have a specific page number? A possible quote? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• p.122 "the Bishop of Chartres" -who at that time was Ivo. Also, [1]: Ivo provided the foundation charter. See also [2] Manannan67 (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I just did not see a page number and was unable to find Ivo or the year mentioned. Stay safe! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Confraternities of the Cord into Our Lady of Consolation. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't copied so much as moved wholesale with a link to the Main as I thought Our Lady of Consolation was a better, and more specific location for information concerning the "Archconfraternity of Our Lady of Consolation" rather than a more generic article about cords. The edit summaries indicate where the material came from and where it went. I thought moving text was different from copying as for the most part, it's no longer in the original article and not duplicating it. (It's not precisely a split either.) I routinely use the Attribution edit summary when copying and will do so when moving text if that's the problem.Manannan67 (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when copying and pasting from one Wikipedia page to another, the attribution edit summaries need to be used with links to the original article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for for your series of edits to Pope articles back in 2018 (eg Revision as of 05:56, 21 December 2018 to Pope Urban VII. At the time you used the website www.newadvent.org to create a link to the relevant article in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913). There is a full copy of this source on Wikisource and there are three Wikipedia templates to access an article:

• {{cite CE1913}} -- which is just like {{cite encyclopaedia}}, but it fills in some of the known parameters. It has custom parameter to replace {{{title}}} called {{{wstitle}}} which automatically links to the Catholic Encyclopedia article name.
• {{CE1913}} -- a wrapper around {{cite CE1913}} which provides prescript containing a attribution to a public domain source
• {{CE1913 poster}} -- which can be placed in the external links section when a Catholic Encyclopedia article has information relevant to the Wikipedia article but is not cited in the article.

for example I replace the link you provided in your Revision as of 05:56, 21 December 2018 with * {{CE1913 |first=Michael |last=Ott |wstitle=Pope Urban VII |volume=15}} which produces:

•  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Ott, Michael (1912). "Pope Urban VII". In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

-- PBS (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not familiar with such templates you may be interested to know that there are many more such templates see Category:Attribution templates -- PBS (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I routinely use "Catholic|wstitle=" but prefer to cite NA. While Wikisourse is derived from NA, it does not include the inline links to related topics, and Wikisource doesn't always give the sources. I use both, thus giving the reader a choice. The PD notice was suggested by someone from ce. Manannan67 (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manannan67, I was working on cleaning up the infobox for Cristóbal Magallanes Jara and was surprised to find that there was second infobox in that article for a different person (Agustín Caloca Cortés) that was merged in by you on April 22, 2020 [3]. I am puzzled by why that was done. Do you recall why the merge was done? thx. – Archer1234 (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the Cortez section indicates, he was a protege of Jara, who died with him. They were canonized together on May 21, 2000 as "Cristóbal Magallanes Jara and 19 other companions" and share the same feast day. There isn't all that much information about either one of them, and between the two of them only a half-dozen citations. As a relatively obscure "other companion", I thought Cortez was likely to get "lost". It just seemed they belonged together. -If you disagree, feel free to reverse it. Manannan67 (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anselm of Lucca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gregory VII.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Institute of consecrated life has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the page is tagged for Primary sources, I went looking for secondary and particularly avoided using anything from the Code. If I had used the Vatican site I would've have cited it. I used Weisenbeck, Larkin, and Skarda. Manannan67 (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It matches content on the Vatican website, which is protected by copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Heresy in the Catholic Church. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: This is not an appeal, but a request for clarification as to how reverts are counted. My first edit of March 11 (at 00:20) was to supply the examples requested in a previous comment on the Talk page. After it was reverted the second time, I went to work on something else. In the second edit (23:29) -which the other party complained was "completely different", I rewrote the lede, added some context, reduced redundancy, and removed a sentence tagged unsourced. When this was reverted a second time, I spent a good deal of time on the Talk page. My last edit on that page was March 12 (02:58) was not a revert but a rewrite of the Formal and Material section, and a trimming of a lengthy footnote from January 25. I did not cite the other individual for # of reverts since the earlier reverts were of different substance, which I took to be a separate matter. I was under the impression that the prohibition pertained to persistent revert of the same material, and had thought I had avoided the 3RR rule. However, it appears in this I was in error and that it simply refers to the article/page without regard to what was reverted? Manannan67 (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period."--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hubertus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frankish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Church of the Sacred Heart (Richmond, Virginia) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An ongoing discussion regarding whether to relocate Clement of Rome to "Pope Clement I" is underway. You're invited to join the conversation here. Thank you. EXANXC (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your latest edits. Don't mean to be unfriendly, but you have a Master Editor star on your page here, meaning you've been active for six years. According to your contrib's, you began making contributions, edits, in June, 2019, not quite five years ago. Just so you know, my fellow editor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first account was created in February 2011 and had something over 33k edits before I got locked out and had to create a new one. Do those eight years no longer count? Manannan67 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you certainly earned your stripes. Just thought you made an oversight and was letting you know. Appreciate all your edits. Keep well, -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Dear Manannan, as you inserted the template wishing to expand the article from the Spanish one and as the presend English article is not a stub: it would be helpful if you could indicate which kind of content you'd like to add. Thank you. Medusahead (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Folklore of the Low Countries, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems rather broad. Manannan67 (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's considered too narrow for a wikiproject Kowal2701 (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If one develops, I'll probably help out. What project would it belong to? Manannan67 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Anthro, currently I've got about 15 definites, plus 5 interested but busy. Still messaging people, aiming for 20 but the dream's 50 Kowal2701 (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]