User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Peabody Energy

Hi Old Moonraker, you provided me with some help when I was first getting started on Wikipedia and I was hoping you might be willing to look over some revisions I proposed to the Black Mesa controversy section in the Peabody Energy article. I would go forward with the revisions, but as I have a COI with the article, want to make sure I get feedback from experienced editors. Thanks again for your time. JamesClyde (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Replying there. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Railway signalling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Audit Office (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed: National Audit Office (United Kingdom)--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not an advertisement

Regarding the new information about "The Papers of Sherlock Holmes": It is not an advertisement, any more than any of the other books listed in this topic are advertisements. However, I did remove the website link to the publisher. I was simply interested in adding the title to all the others already there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damarcum (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see the note on your talk page. The material has been inserted four times now; this is edit warring. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Historical Jesus - Blog Citation

Thanks Old Moonraker. I was about to revert the blog citation of JZCL. As much as I appreciate JZCL, but if we would begin to cite private blog posts we would get into big trouble.
Inawe 21:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This will be an easy fix for somebody: the statement needing a reference is "according to the gospels", so the primary source, Mark 2:17, would do.--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Bristol High Cross

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Your review was impressively painstaking. Your thoroughness and scholarship is appreciated and respected. Andrew Davidson (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That was my first one seen through to promotion, so I needed to take it slowly. Thanks for the assurance that I got it right! --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Street (carpenter)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	The efforts and care that you use in so many areas of Wikipedia are much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I caught the edit that you made on Nicholas Nickleby so I thought I would leave a barnstar for you on Dicken's 200th birthday. We have about two feet of snow - with more falling - where I live so I may have to pull my copy of The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby (play) off the shelf to celebrate. Thanks again for all your work here and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, thank you. As we both often edit in the same areas I can say, in all sincerity, that I remain in your shadow! In an anniversary-related coincidence, I was just reading Chapter 6, the stagecoach in the snowdrift, but AFAICR this isn't in the play. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, so much, for the gracious complement. I deeply appreciate it. What a fun coincidence. I bought a nice quality copy of NN a couple years ago from The Folio Society and was going to have it with me while watching the play but now I am going to have to read that chapter first and I'll let you know if it is there in some form. Cheers again. MarnetteD | Talk 18:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your memory was correct. We see nothing of the journey to the "Dotheboys Hal" only their arrival. What an interesting chapter in the book. It rings of Scheherazade weaving other tales into the main one. John Thaxter is a theatre critic who was a champion of the play back in the 80s and he shared a fun story with me of how he snuck into a balcony full of props to see the final performance. It would have been a treat to be in the audience for any of its performances. MarnetteD | Talk 21:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Richard Wallace

Hi, the change was not poorly referenced. I believe I added it to the edit summary - you might want to check that before removing things without asking. I definitely added it to the talk page of the article. For your information, the note I put on the talk page is

Why did somebody remove my additional information on this article? He did go to Ratcliffe College - as stated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratcliffe_College

Please stop removing stuff without checking first. --Ray3zor (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC) --Ray3zor (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the WP:BLP policy allows very little flexibility; the information had no reference. Offering me another Wikipedia page where this has been done doesn't help: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Charles Dickens

Hello. I only read wikipedia but i needed to message. On the Charles Dickens page a user has just made biased, defamatory edits against him. The words... ALLEGATIONS OF Anti semitism and racism... need to be reinstated, and his page needs to be watched. Thank you. 178.155.132.158 (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry: after a two users made repeated disparagements of my editing on that page—one that I was too lenient towards Dickens (and thus guilty of anti-semitism and racism myself) and one that I was too harsh towards him—I have redacted myself. A charitable view would be that I was getting the balance about right, but the personal attacks were getting me down. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Would like your opinion

Hi again. First, let me say how sorry I am over your experience on Dickens page as mentioned above. IMO you must of been doing something right if accusations of bias come from both ends of the spectrum. Thanks for your efforts anyway. Next would you please take a look at the info about the 2007 "Nich Nick" (I think Mr Thaxter told me that was how the press referred to it at the time) revival here Nicholas Nickleby#Theatre adaptation. It reads, to my eyes, as though the full length version was performed but the info about this production on the page for the play states that is was the shortened one. I wanted to check with you before making any changes.

On an unrelated note you beat me to warning the IP that just messed around with the Oscar Wilde article "Good job"!! I wanted to check if you were aware of the {{subst:uw-selfrevert}} warning. That is the one that I usually use (at least the first time and that is its drawback as it only has one level) for an IP that makes the nonsense edit and then reverts it. Please don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with the warning you placed I just wanted to make you aware of this one in case you didn't know about it. Have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 17:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Chichester production was six-and-a-half hours, compared with the RSC eight-and-a-half[1]. This must be the "truncated version" referred to in the lede. (I didn't go, because I didn't want my memories of the RSC Aldwych version diluted: possibly a sound decision[2]! Conversely Billington, who slated the original production, seemed to love the shorter revival, according to the external link.)

My edit on the IP editor's talk page was a misclick: The software script offered me a range of responses, including {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} and {{subst:uw-test2}}, in a drop-down menu; my finger lost contact with the track-pad a tad too soon and the wrong warning was created. Do I need to go back and revise it? --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah you lucky lucky audience member (My business cards would read "Professional Member of the Audience" if I had need for business cards :-) so you also got to see it live way back when. It is gonna take awhile to get the "green with envy" outta my system. I don't think there is any problem with your warning. They did vandalise the page with their first edit. I was only mentioning the selfrevert warning on the off chance that you weren't aware of it. They keep changing the layout of the Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace to the point that I thought we had lost the {{subst:uw-error1-4}} warnings a couple weeks ago. Thanks so much for taking the time to add links to the reviews in your reply. I appreciate getting to read them. MarnetteD | Talk 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You will notice that I have been bold and had a go at enhancing the section a little. Please feel free to alter and fix anything that I have done. I am sure that there were shortened performances before the one we list (I missed one performed in Denver in the 90's because I was living in Ketchikan AK at the time) but I don't know if it is necessary to note that in the article. Thanks ahead of time for checking more efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 04:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Gosh I only just caught up with the fact that Mr Thaxter passed away Jan 30. Thank you so much for adding a note about that to his talk page. I can't tell you how many wonderful stories he shared with me about various performances and actors (including Tony Church who acted here in Denver for several years) and I count myself lucky to have corresponded with him. MarnetteD | Talk 04:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've spent the last few hours going over my correspondence with Mr Thaxter and I wanted to share a few of the items that I am very fortunate to have read. However, I don't want to clutter your talk page so you will find them here User:MarnetteD/Sandbox#Highlights of my correspondence with John Thaxter. He also shared some things about his youth and his WWII experiences that I hope show up in The Stage tribute to him. If you are interested here is a link to an interview that he gave back in 2004 [3]. I don't think that his work improving actor and theatre articles here at WikiP can be easily measured so I will simply thank you again for noting his passing. MarnetteD | Talk 07:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, immensely, for posting that link to some of John Thaxter's reminiscences; it brought to mind some past shows I had almost forgotten. As John says, the full "Nick Nick" in a day was much the best way to see the work; you were fully immersed in the performance to the exclusion of anything else, and the enthusiasm and support from the audience was tremendous, carrying the whole thing forward.

I'm glad that actors, generally, manage to resist jumping through the "fourth wall" to deal with a troublesome audience member, but it can be done so smoothly that there isn't a hitch! Patrick Stewart opens here soon as WS in Bingo, and I remember how on one night during the show's first run, he reached into the audience to seize a copy of the playtext that a young student was using to follow the dialog, snapped it shut and handed it back to her, all without leaving character. That particular venue, Buzz Goodbody's The Other Place, with the audience sitting on benches close around the playing area, always created a very direct rapport between player and audience, and just then it seemed a completely appropriate action.

So, thanks, again. —Old Moonraker (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And many thanks for posting memories of your audience experiences. Sadly, I have only enjoyed Nick Nick from the TV recording but it is still remarkable and enjoyable experience. Even though my first viewing was spread over 4 nights I can still remember sitting on the edge of my seat in (almost) breathless awe of John Woodvine's acting in Ralph N's death scene. The DVD shows several scenes of audience involvement early in the play but that fades in acts three and four and I have often wondered if that is the way it was in the theatre or did the recording simply not show further involvement.

On another note one of the reason that I treasure my correspondence with Mr Thaxter is that he helped fill in the gap of my not getting to see the stage performances of so many UK actors that I admire. I have recently read Elisabeth Sladen's autobiography and I thought that I would share this gem with you. In the summers of 1962 and 63 she was enrolled with the London Youth Theatre. Other members included Simon Ward, Kenneth Cranham, Diana Quick, Michael Cadman, Hywel Bennett and Helen Mirren. What must it have been like to be in the audience with all that budding talent onstage. Sladen writes that there was a secret poll among the company about who was most likely to succeed and they chose her. She goes on to say that "I don't remember how well Helen took it at the time, but as she polishes here Oscar every now and then, I'm sure she doesn't let it trouble her."

Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I saw that you had added the full obit from The Stage. It left out some items that were fascinating to me that I wanted to pass along. During WWII he was evacuated to the countryside and never finished school. In spite of that he found work with the government team attempting to break the German codes (though not with those at Bletchley Park) and that is what lead to his involvement with British Telecom. IMO a life well lived and worthy of a biography read by many others. Until that happens I will just consider myself blessed that he shared these with me and I am glad to pass them on to you. MarnetteD | Talk 22:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This was all new to me, so thanks again. Another obit here, but it doesn't add much (except a photo) to the one from The Stage. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Pooh Shepard1928.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Pooh Shepard1928.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

fixed.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Greenblatt

Hi OM! I took Greenblatt out of the biography page because of the explicit subjective nature of his treatment. He admits that his technique is speculative, and I want to stick with more objective sources to remove any potential conflict down the road when I take the article to G or FA status. I doubt I will do much more on the Dickens page unless they stop the BS edit warring, but I meant what I said when I wrote that the page is a disgrace to Wikipedia. The readers deserve more than that mess. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes that does make sense; SG acknowledges that he has made use of his imagination in the work. Thanks for the reply. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You are a great asset on WP, and seem to have the ability to be where you are needed most... happy editing... Johnfos (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the endorsement—I appreciate it. It's not an ability, though, just a consequence of my over-large watchlist! Regards. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Necromancy

Regarding your recent edit, I was hoping that you could specify what has "failed verification" since you did not provide much in the way of an edit summary. The content in question was already there before I got involved with the article several months ago – all I did was clean up the text and reformat the citation as part of a general overhaul of the article – so I honestly have no idea which parts of it do or do not appear in the work cited. Fortunately, however, the tag you used suggests that you yourself are familiar with (and perhaps even have access to) the book, so I imagine that it would be relatively easy for you to identify the unsourced material, which would be most helpful toward resolving the issue. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Replying there. Sorry for the delay. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2

Hi. When you recently edited Gonystylus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal Botanic Gardens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

American and British English Spelling Ize Vrs Ise

The problem for me is that the article still invokes the support of Fowler for the ise spelling, even though he himself clearly came down on the side of ize for words on the Greek root. In this case the work referenced, A Pocket Fowler, is not written by Fowler. I could comment on the correctness of writing something that's the opposite of what Fowler himself wrote and then using his name to sell it, but I won't. Accordingly I have modified the name of the work to include the word 'Pocket', and added, higher up, a note on Fowler's actual position, as well as that of Horace Hart (who was The Controller of the Universe after all: see http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/oxford-university-press/some-account-of-the-oxford-university-press-1468-1921-hci/page-2-some-account-of-the-oxford-university-press-1468-1921-hci.shtml). I have not bothered to reference the 1st Ed. of Fowler's, but linked to the page on Fowler's, as this seems to be the general practice on other pages referring to it. I also changed 'most other reference works' to 'many reference works': Unless there is a referenceable analysis of all such works in this regard, 'most' must be opinion, and there is no reference work identified earlier in the paragraph for these/this to be other than.

There's also still a referencing error, as the reference for Cambridge's preference for ise leads to the Pocket Fouler. I've not changed this as I don't know what the preference reference was originally to. Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've checked the "Cambridge preference" reference in The Pocket Fowler: it seems OK. ISBN added. The modern editor is clearly shown. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Grand Union Canal

Thanks for the note. I knew this one because I have made the same mistake! --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Good of you to take the trouble. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Gingerbread Link

Hello!

The link http://www.topmarks.co.uk/stories/gingerbread.htm was added by me to The Gingerbread Man and Gingerbread man because the other link for the story is dead (for the first article) and because I thought a link to the story would be appropriate (for the second article). Oct13 (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion available here. Thanks for the note. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Globe Theatre thanks

Good catch. I've updated the file description on the commons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Quincy Adams book: I've put it on my Kindle and, while mindful of more recent discoveries, will be reading it soon. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

When Editors Attack

When you roll back an edit from a primary and authoritative source, you put yourself in a trap. Waiting for an Obituary may never end, (most assuredly one will be published in this case, but many noteworthy folks do not have such posted.) The more appropriate question is "Who are you to be making this edit?" Unfortunately, Wikipedia is living in a past that it helped destroy. Encyclopedia Britannica is ceasing publication while attempting an "on-line version" A Look at Encyclopaedia Britannica as it exits print, as well as the vast majority of primary source Newspaper reporting outlets. The "authoritative" list of sources is becoming smaller by the day. What makes Larry Magid of the Contra Costa Times of Walnut Creek California authoritative? What makes the nephew of a man who's humor and charm are no where to be found in this microscopically small view of the life of a man who's contribution is amazing by its depth, but gets less coverage in Wikipedia than Britney Spears who's contribution will be remembered in 100 years only through vague cultural references. This is because, much more is "published" about Britney, but it unfortunately mostly vacuous drivel.

But, worse, you irritated me while I was grieving, and that is honestly offensive.

Powelld (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's more offensive to have faked death announcements on Wikipedia; unfortunately this is a very common form of vandalism. The WP:BLP policy is strictly applied, and will continue to be applied, to prevent such occurrences.--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Chernobyl disaster

Apparently the book's already been published--I have a copy myself, just bought it on Saturday. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 12:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. WP:SOURCEACCESS applies: as long as the reader can somehow get a copy it's acceptable. I just wanted to be sure of the "20,000 years" assertion: after all, exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Any chance of a quote in the footnote? --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments re Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion

It may look like spamming, but it was not meant as such. As you said yourself, self-published books are "... largely not acceptable..." per WP's guideline for self-published works. As I read that guidleline, I found no direct prohibition ... and the guideline did say "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.".

I would like to point that a number of the WP articles wherein the book is used as a reference were created and largely written by me a number of years ago, and came directly from the book's website:

• Atmospheric dispersion modeling
• Air pollution dispersion terminology
• Air pollutant concentrations
• Useful conversions and formulas for air dispersion modeling

Many of the other WP articles wherein the book is cited were created by me and the book is directly relevant to all of them:

• DISPERSION21
• Air Quality Modeling Group
• Atmospheric Studies Group
• ADMS 3
• AUSTAL2000
• UK Dispersion Modelling Bureau
• TA Luft
• AP 42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
• AERMOD
• UK Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling Liason Committee
• Czech Hydrometeorological Institute
• Many, many other WP articles which I either created or for which I was a major contributor.

I hope this clears up the misconception (in my opinion) that I was spamming. mbeychok (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. To reiterate: "It's good when experts contribute to Wikipedia". However, the first item of the web page you have been adding is a clickable link

• "How To Buy" and the most prominent element on the page is a link to the price: $115 (wow!). It does bring WP:QUACK to mind. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I know that you are trying to make a point, but come now! The website home page has a small navigation bar across the top and the "How to buy" link is just one of the page links in that navigation bar. The only price on the home page is the $35 for a downloadable e-book version in pdf format. The bottom of the home page also lists the 7 free articles available on the website.

The $115 price for a printed, bound copy is not on the home page! In any event, why the red font and the "wow!"? That is really quite inexpensive compared to most other university textbooks. As I said, I realize that you are trying to make a point ... but let's be fair about it. Regards, mbeychok (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Akhil

Hi Old Moonraker!

I declined the speedy deletion of Akhil. page has been vandalized, not eligible for speedy. Regards, decltype (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right. The vandal, Magakhil, made such a thorough job that I hadn't spotted this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

They'll block me no matter what. That's all they do. This is vandalism. Check your facts. Do some research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanFamilyAttorney (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Why, so they did! --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2012

i hate you

It looks as if our Shakespeare vandal, DuncanFamilyAttorney, is back as 96.231.115.112. At now we know the location: Washington, DC. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Afraid so. It seems to be trolling and block evasion from User:HenryVIIIyes, rather than any misguided attempt to offer "the truth to the world". Thanks for the note. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Soooooooooooooooooooooooo Hundred Years War

Sooooooooooooooooooooooo you read it incorrectly. Looks like you can't read a diff any better than I did. I removed nothing. Keep trolling, you might find something. Oh well, Wiki civility is definitely in its death throes. Mugginsx (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Replying there.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. I never removed the map. Please learn how to read diffs. I am not even accused by the editor who inserted the map of having deleted it. The converstation was about the picture of the plague victims. No mention was made of the map. I have no idea about the map. I am not going to bother to look into what you think you are talking about. If you would mind your own business you might have a better handle on what is going on and not continue to make yourself look so foolish. If you do not know how to find an article to created or improve, then keep trolling, you might find something real to complain about. But the best idea is YOUR OWN. i.e., A better deployment of the contributor's time and effort might be in a fix, rather than diverting blame to others. This is my last response to you

Here's the diff, in the unlikely event that anybody's interested in the facts. I have just restored the deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Via Domiziana|Via Domitia

I was confused by your edit on Roman roads piping Via Domitia to link to Via Domiziana. I had posted the "Disambiguation Needed" note on Neapolis and I had checked the article for Via Domitia which runs across the south of modern France and couldn't find a Neapolis that seemed to fit. I also went to the link for Statius which refers to the Via Domitiana which redirects to Via Domiziana which is a good fit for Naples, so I was confused. It seems that Roman roads had an error in it and Via Domitia should be changed to Via Domiziana rather than piped. I don't have much knowledge of ancient Rome so I could be very confused. What do you think? SchreiberBike (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the error was in the original link to the French Via Domitia—no wonder you couldn't find "Neapolis" nearby! (It's a Greek-derived name, and the Greeks didn't name many towns in Gaul.) Once that was piped to the correct Via Domitiana (which opens "Via Domitiana in the Campania region of Italy was a major Roman road built … and named for the emperor, Domitian, to facilitate access to and from … the Gulf of Naples" [original empahasis]) the rest was easy. The Via Domiziana|Via Domitiana article might need a tweak, to comply with WP:LEADSENTENCE. Any help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Via Domiziana opening sentence now tweaked. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually there's a simpler excuse, which I've only just noticed: my original contained a typo; this has been fixed, with acknowledgement to the finder, User:SchreiberBike. If I hadn't made the typo, User:SchreiberBike wouldn't have queried it and the misdirected wikilinks wouldn't have been mended! --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for working everything out. SchreiberBike (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20