User talk:Ltwin

Book of Common Prayer

Hello @Ltwin: I wanted to first thank you for your creation of the 1552 BCP page and your other edits—excellent job! I also wanted to make sure that, since it seems like you’re the other person making BCP articles right now, we didn't accidentally overlap on work. I wanted to know if you're going to be producing a 1662 BCP page, as I was planning to produce one after I complete the 1962 Canadian BCP page. If you plan to do it, I'd prefer to leave it to you so I could work on pages for some other BCPs. Thanks and, again, incredible work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Pbritti, thanks for the appreciation. I had thought about working on a 1662 page eventually, but only after completing the ones that came before it (1552, 1559, and 1604) if I can find enough information to give each its own article. So I have more than enough work right now. If you want to go ahead and create the 1663 article I would be thrilled 😁. Ltwin (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Outstanding. When I’ve gotten to it, probably early April, I'll tag you to take a quick look! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Titling question (and a treat)

@Ltwin:: Hi! Since you're really the only consistent contributor on prayer book material right now, I was hoping to pick your brain about a couple questions:

• 1. What should we name my forthcoming article on the U.S. 1928 BCP? I favor retaining the nomenclature we've used elsewhere–"Book of Common Prayer ([YEAR])"–but we already have a Book of Common Prayer (1928). How do you feel about "Book of Common Prayer (1928, U.S.)"?
• 2. I intend to publish a quick series of independent pages better detailing the prayer book lineages of several smaller Anglican or Anglican-adjacent groups (the REC and King's Chapel). Any preference for naming convention there? I favor "Book of Common Prayer (REC)", for example.

Anyhow, I wanted to express my gratitude, so here's a little something:

		Richard Hooker Memorial Barnstar
		Thank you for your diligence and commitment to Wikiproject Anglicanism, as well as your general kindness! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti:: Thanks for the barnstar! It does seem kind of lonely in the prayer book space right now doesn't it? That kind of surprises me because there is so much scholarship available about Anglican liturgy and I would have thought a Wikipedian would have filled in the gaps by now lol. In regards, to your questions:

• 1. Have you thought of American Book of Common Prayer (1928)?
• 2. I agree. Something like "Book of Common Prayer (REC)" makes perfect sense to me.

Ltwin (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ltwin: It is awful peculiar, considering I have found rather extensive online communities that discuss the prayer books with rigor and regularity. In any case, I must admit my hesitancy on referring to it as "American" is largely founded on having encountered complaints that, in the broadest technical sense, "American" applies beyond the U.S. Also, as far as I know, italicizing the title would produce "American Book of Common Prayer (1928)" and mean a different titling convention from the 1979 (and 1892, when I finally get to it). Willing to discuss further and if you move the page post-publication I'll accept it unquestioningly. As for question 2, I'll implement when I start sometime next month. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we have to worry about too many complaints using "American" since it's widely acknowledged that American is a synonym for the United States. In regards to italicization, Template:Italic title allows you to pick and choose which parts of the title you want to italicize. I just think American Book of Common Prayer (1928) is a lot better style-wise than "Book of Common Prayer (1928, U.S.)". Ltwin (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Excellent! I’ll implement when I put it in the mainspace. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Ltwin! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Splitting page with redirect, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxons

Have you got prior consensus on the talk page to change the referencing system per WP:CITEVAR? DuncanHill (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User:DuncanHill, I didn't think there would be any objections to it, but if you object I'll change it back. Ltwin (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Ltwin/Draft Anglo-Saxon government

Hi--"Anglo-Saxon", already a misnomer (since it leaves out the Jutes and the Frisian), has become kind of a sus term in scholarship. "Old English" will work just as well--I hope you will consider renaming it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies, thanks for the feedback. It's something to think about. Most of the books I've read have used the term "Anglo-Saxon" and that term is more consistent with the other titles used on Wikipedia for this period. I'm about to go live with the article (even though it's not yet where I want it to be), and I would be fine if there were a consensus to move it to a new title. Ltwin (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a matter of developing consensus. I'll see if I can find some relevant discussions. I can tell you that when "my" own book (an edited collection) was going through the press (about three years ago), my co-editor and I decided it was too late for a wholesale adjustment, though I made probably two or three dozen silent redactions. So, yes, most of the books you will find on the library shelves will still use "Anglo-Saxon", but that will change; we have the white supremacists to thank for that. Thanks, and thanks for writing up important albeit esoteric material, Drmies (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

What was your book on? I will admit a lot of my sources are older. It seems like a lot of the more detailed sources were written at least several decades ago. Ltwin (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, no need to admit anything: printed scholarship is conservative. There's some discussion in Anglo-Saxons#Legacy; the ISAS changing their name (to International Society for the Study of Early Medieval England was a big thing, prompted by esp. younger scholars (meaning younger than me!) and their newfangled blog posts, haha. This, by Mary Rambaran-Olm, lays out a bunch of the arguments, but as this piece by Mary Dockray-Miller indicates, the association of both the field but especially the term to white supremacy was clear for a long time (here, in 1986. This article is quite insightful and has very useful links. Again, Mary Rambaran-Olm, on Medium but valid, and this list of resources (for all relevant fields) is excellent. I met this guy at a conference and he is where scholarship is going, so you will see this in years to come, and then it will percolate into Wikipedia as well; personally, I'd like to see that sooner rather than later, but I don't want to press the point and I don't want to tell you what to do. After all, we go by published sources and the pendulum hasn't swung over into the "Old English" side. Thanks, and again I appreciate the work you're doing. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

History of the British peerage

Hi Ltwin. You added a reference for "Warren 1987" to History of the British peerage, but that work isn't defined in the article. Could you add the required cite to the References section, or let me know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested. Thanks for letting me know. I will add it. Ltwin (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Ltwin. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

History of Christian theology

Hello again Ltwin. You add "Schnelle 2020" to History of Christian theology but it's undefined. Same as last time, could you add the required cite or let me know what it is? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested thanks for catching that again. I've added the source. Ltwin (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again Ltwin. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

	Easter Joy
	Happy Easter to a fine editor! May you have a kind and joyful Paschaltide! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti, thank you so much. I hope you have a wonderful Easter as well! Ltwin (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Havana syndrome on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel and apartheid on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)