User talk:Dr. Grampinator

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, German crusade army led by Emicho. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Rhineland massacres. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Rhineland massacres – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Domdeparis (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Neumoustier Abbey, Dr. Grampinator!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for taking the time to create this article - it's appreciated. Could you please look it over and see if you can address the issues raised in the improvement tags? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks for creating Sacred Relic of St. George, Dr. Grampinator!

Wikipedia editor TonyBallioni just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for this contribution to the encyclopedia! It meets the minimum size and age requirements, so you might be interested in taking it over to WP:DYK.

To reply, leave a comment on TonyBallioni's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

TonyBallioni (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Hugh of Eu, Dr. Grampinator!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add relevant wikiprojects to the talk pages of articles you create.

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, The First Crusades. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – First Crusade. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at First Crusade. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. WikiVirusC (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dr. Grampinator. You have new messages at WikiVirusC's talk page.
Message added 16:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiVirusC (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The article Monastery of Belcinac has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Endercase (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dr. Grampinator,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating Abu’lgharib Artsuni! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you:-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for 3 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Bagrat Pakrad, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more footnotes. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Masum Reza^📞 13:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Dr. G., you've done a tremendous job in adding articles about medieval topics on English Wikipedia, but please, do some research before just using the French names and terms! "Big" languages like French, German, English used to have this habit of translating names, nowadays it isn't politically correct anymore; in any case, Charlemagne is Karl der Große to the Germans and might be Charles the Great to the English-speakers, and so on. For instance, Cave de Suète is known in English literature by its medieval French name, Cave de Sueth, a whole bunch of Thierrys are known as Theoderic or Dietrich, and so forth. Google might be all you need to figure out the correct English name. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Arminden (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a polite thank you for your comments on the ACR of this one. Tbh I took a moribund article, updated it and wondered how far it would go in that state. The answer is clearly to GAR but not much further without serious work. I don't have the time, energy or inclination to give due attention to your valid comments (sorry fot that) so will be stepping back from this article. Someone, sometime maybe will pick this up again. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The article Guy II, Count of Soissons has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This man is not notable enough to warrant a separate article, as his biography can be summed up in a sentence in his father's biographical article. He either died just before or just after his father and the title passed to the sister of the subject of this biography. I suggest this page becomes a redirect to the father's biography Renaud I, Count of Soissons

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

-- PBS (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Please use the parameters as specified in WP:CS1 (or Template:Cite_web/doc. For example you recently made this edit Revision as of 17:02, 16 July 2020 I have altered it Revision as of 17:09, 16 July 2020, to separate out the values into separate parameters.

If editors use the parameters as specified then the parameters will produce a consistent display of the citation. If editors roll their own then consistency is lost. Worse (because it will case more work for editors), in the long run the citations will probably throw up errors as further parameter checking is implemented. A parameter is something like |last= and |first=.

For this particular website if the articles have a date you might like to consider using {{cite encyclopedia}} instead of {{cite web}} however if you use {{cite web}} please include the parameter |access-date because the website page may change and the access-date makes it easier to check archives for the appropriate version.

-- PBS (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You must have noticed that I have been re-formatting templated inline citations in List of sources for the Crusades so that data is placed into the appropriate fields eg the edit Revision as of 23:31, 19 July 2020 . Why are you adding templated inline citations to List of sources for the Crusades without passing data in to template using the appropriate parameters?

For example in the edit (Revision as of 01:44, 20 July 2020 ) you added:

 {{Cite web|last=Embree, Dan and [Rvsd. EDK], in Med Chron, 2016

instead of formatting it as:

 {{Cite web|last=Embree |first=Dan |author2=EDK (Rvsd.) EDK] |website=Med Chron |date=2016

In fact for "Med Chron" ("Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle") it would be better to use the citation template {{Cite encyclopaedia}} so the {para|website}} can be replaced with the more descriptive |encyclopedia=.

   {{Cite encyclopedia|last=Embree |first=Dan |author2=EDK (Rvsd.) EDK] |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle |date=2016

-- PBS (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for you r post to my talk page. I am busy at the moment, but I will discuss this issue with you further with some ideas that might help. -- PBS (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Dr. Grampinator,

Thank you for creating List of Crusades to Europe and the Holy Land.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

While I think the list is an interesting and important organisation of the information available on the Crusades, the lead needs to give more context and shouldn't contain a list of sources - these should be used as citations where the links aren't good enough or present, or where the source proves an assertion that is not directly borne out by the link. It's quite a big job still and I wonder if it wouldn't be better undertaken as a draft for now, out of the choppy waters of mainspace?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. It's an important and fascinating list, but FWIW I still think it is a huge project in itself and you may be better off considering developing it in draftspace, 'cos there's still a lot to do. The quotes you've used in the lead should really be contributions to the main Crusades article - a lead should be no more than four paras, which establish the topic, reasons for its notability and summarise the main points of the page - take a wade through Wikipedia:Manual of Style and particularly Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and perhaps even Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout if you're feeling robust. The section headers and sub-headers could perhaps use a little consideration (again, WP:MOS is useful if you can fight your way through a million items of stylistic restriction) - and some illustrations might be neat. There are way more references in there now, which is great, but you can never have enough of 'em. It might just be worth asking on the Crusades talk page - or perhaps one of the many projects with an interest in this area (WikiProject Middle Ages / Crusades, for a start!) for help/contributions. I know a new article is a cherished thing, but as I said, it's quite a big job and important - it deserves more eyeballs and other people helping you with the spade work. You've established the thing, there is no shame in getting some help to take it and buff it to GA standard! I do hope this is helpful! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

You might be interested in collaborating with others in this task force. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 02:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my concerns. I agree that the "The Pilgrims of Christ before the Crusade" are closely related to the crusades, but I think they should be listed in a separate article. I highly appreciate your work on the sources of the crusades. I think hundreds of thousands of people who are interested in this subject will be grateful to you for your lists. What is sure, I am one of them. Borsoka (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Historians of the Crusades: the auxiliary sciences of history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historians of the Crusades: the auxiliary sciences of history until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of English translations from medieval sources, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Owain ap Gruffydd. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dr G, looks like you have been doing good work on this. I was just wondering what your ambition for the article was? Have a good day. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Liking the edits so far Dr G - looking forward to seeing the shape of the article when you get to the end. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, not so sure now where you are heading with Crusades? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: I'm going to continue working on the First through Third Crusades, making them barebones as everyone seems to want. I sort of wanted the article to reflect an outline comparable to Setton, et. al., but the consensus seems to be more like a World Book article. I have left the Fourth through Ninth Crusades as is, glaring errors throughout. No one has noticed for years so I doubt they will now. I totally eliminated my historiography write-up as totally out-of-scope. The main Historiography of the Crusades will have to stand, with its bizarre references to Eisenhower and Bush (but not Walter Scott as a historian). I'm sure the usual complaints will continue, likely the ones about citations resurfacing. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Shame, I was liking your work Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: I'm guessing you were the only one. I am puzzled at the constant battle fought about articles being too long (e.g., List of Later Historians of the Crusades). But, I've done it before and I'm sure I'll do it again, as I can't help myself. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Same here, WP can be a pedants paradise sometimes. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: Well, I keep telling myself it's not the end of the world. I've had some good rewrite successes (Order of Assassins, List of Sources, First Crusade) and dismal failures (Crusades, Historiography of the Crusades), and yet we persevere. I'm taking a cut at the Fifth Crusade. So far, so good. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from March from Antioch to Jerusalem during the First Crusade into First Crusade. 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. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I just happened to be reading this and noticed it was quite clear AND in English. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Your edit to Hugues de Revel 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) 13:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A) The fact that the Jets were trying to rape Anita was fairly common knowledge, as can be evidenced by comparative reviews of the 1961 vs 2021 films. Also, the fact that the attempted act was rape is made EXPLICIT in the 2021 film as Valentina literally refers to the Jets as “[attempted] rapists”

B) The fact that Tony and Maria had sex is made obvious by his shirtlessness in the scene thereafter. (Remember, this was the early 60s and the Hays’ Code was in effect, hence the subtlety.) 73.207.3.240 (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I've suggested this might go into the Historiography section of the Crusades page. I'm keen to find it a home on a relatively high traffic page if possible, as it seems useful (a primary source, read in the original, and subtitled in English) and should be of interest to readers. I can see why you removed it from the general narrative of the First Crusades, of course. However if there is a good way to give it decent placement I would be very grateful, not least to encourage the video maker to contribute more of his works to Wikipedia. Elsewhere I've found that videos are very popular content on Wikipedia pages, if that is helpful to know as well. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I did relook at this as I originally thought it should go in the article Siege of Antioch. I've added it back to First Crusade but in the historiography section that discusses Gesta. We'll see if any one else comments. I think it may be too detailed for the general Crusades article. Thanks for pointing this out. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. The original change to the archiving period was not by me, it was originally 180 days and was moved in this edit on 26 June to 720 days. I moved it to 300 days here but that was reverted, so I reverted the 26 June change, not the revert of my edit. Could you please self-revert your revert to restore the status quo? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Dr._Grampinator, Can you please explain why outremer is the correct word for this paragraph as it's a french word? Avi8tor (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Avi8tor. Outremer is the term traditionally used by Crusade historians in this context. I actually prefer to use the term "Crusader States" but other like "Outremer." Here is the first part of the "Outremer" entry in The Crusades - An Encyclopedia:

Outremer is a name used in medieval sources and in modern scholarship as a collective term for the four Frankish states established in Syria and Palestine by the First Crusade (1096-1099): the county of Edessa (1097-1150), the principality of Antioch (1098-1287), the kingdom of Jerusalem (1099-1291), and the county of Tripoli (1102-1289). The kingdom of Jerusalem extended over the southern parts of Outremer, in the area historically known as Palestine (mod. Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip, and adjacent regions); the other three states were situated in the north, in areas known historically as Syria and Upper Mesopotamia (roughly mod. Syria, southeastern Turkey, and Lebanon). During its relatively short existence, the county of Edessa extended much further to the east than the other Frankish states, well beyond the river Euphrates.

The word Outremer derives from the Old French expression Ou(l)tremer, meaning literally “[the land] beyond the sea,” that is, the lands on the far side of the Mediterranean Sea, seen from the perspective of Western Christians. Similar formulations are found in other languages: Spanish Ultramar, Italian Oltremare, and Middle High German daz lant über mer. An alternative name for the four Frankish principalities in modern historical writing is the “Crusader States.” Although common, this term is less accurate, since after around 1130 extremely few of their Frankish inhabitants were actually crusaders, in the sense of people who had taken a vow to go on crusade. In the Middle Ages the Frankish states were also often collectively known as Syria (Lat. Syria, Fr. Syrie).

Hope this helps. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Outremer is also the modern french word for "overseas" (in English). Referring to the French territories outside France, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_d%27outre-mer, basically the same thing as you mention, my sense is that people who don't speak french will not understand the word, so perhaps you could include the English translation. Avi8tor (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Avi8tor. Like I said, this is the term that historians use. The explanation as to its meaning in English is given in the terminology section of the article Crusades. Also, Crusader states, my preferred term, has a detailed discussion. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you're missing the point, English Wikipedia is a knowledge base read worldwide by people who might or might not know anything of the subject discussed, it's not owned by historians and it's not for historians, it's for everyone. People who read an article should be able to know immediately what something means by clicking thru to the meaning or have it listed in brackets (the simple solution). I read this article and assumed it had been translated from French and this word had been missed in the translation, hence my correction. I hope you'll include (overseas) in the text. Avi8tor (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Avi8tor. Suggest you add a Wikilink to Outremer in articles where you think appropriate. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

{{Admin help}} I posted a new article Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre)‎ on Wikipedia yesterday. It was immediately flagged for deletion. I contested it and contacted the reviewer Velella. It has now been removed by Justlettersandnumbers. What is going on? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I posted a new article Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre)‎ on Wikipedia yesterday. It was immediately flagged for deletion. I contested it and contacted the reviewer Velella. It has now been removed by Justlettersandnumbers. What is going on? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for this adminhelp. This is already at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dr. Grampinator. Thank you for your work on Fall of Outremer. User:Rosguill, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for the thorough writing work that you have done at this article. I see you've integrated the article as a {{main}} article of the appropriate section of Crusades, but I note that similar treatment is missing from Kingdom of Jerusalem. My familiarity with the subject matter is minimal enough that I think this is best left to you and other editors of the topic to synchronize the articles.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks for you quick response. I've added to Kingdom of Jerusalem as you suggested. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at Crusades after Acre, 1291–1399. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea how that got there and it does not appear that it was visible in the Edit mode. But, thanks for getting rid of it. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see discussion WP:URLREQ#fmg.ac and elsewhere. Removal is based on extended years-long community consensus, the source is considered unreliable. -- GreenC 20:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of works about the Crusades based on auxiliary sciences of history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works about the Crusades based on auxiliary sciences of history until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

~TPW 18:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Dr. Grampinator. Thank you for your work on Crusades of the 15th century. User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm never sure if anyone reads these things. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dr. G. You have created an article on the Abbey of Saint Mary of the Valley of Jehosaphat in 2016. I believe it's not linked from any relevant articles, and that's probably why I only discovered it now, and by total chance. That's 7 years too late, incl. the Covid years.

I guess you have Pringle's Curches; I don't, and Google Books offers very ltd access, not including this as far as I can tell (you didn't offer any direct links). Your article has no inline citations. These 2 facts taken together mean that it's close to impossible to read up, check, or add anything to your article by using what is probably the most useful source for Wiki editors.

It's a major site, your work would be greatly welcome, but unfortunately it's hardly having any impact or usefullness right now, which is a huge shame.

Could you please help out with inline citations, direct links, and quotes where Google Books isn't helpful? It would help tremendously! I'm starting to link it now from other articles.

PS: Pringle uses sh, so Jehoshaphat, not Jehosaphat.

PPS: There is nothing useful in this or the (miserable) Tomb of Mary art. about the history of the Crusader buildings: what did they inherit from before? What did they build? Was there, or did they actually build an upper church, or did they make do with cutting a stepped passage to the Byzantine crypt, adding just a small facade in front of the first step? What did Saladin remove from the church itself, what not, and did he repurpose it, or keep it open for prayer for both Muslims and Christians? What happened in 1187 and after to the Crusader structures apart from the church? What about the grotto?

PPPS: I see I was wrong, there areseveral articles linking to it. I'll add where I can. Strange how I didn't become aware of it.

Thank you, Arminden (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. That was one of the first articles I wrote and it shows. I've updated it with references, citations and further reading, but don't have the time now to fix further. Go for it if you can. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Oi.

Yes, the citations are perfectly good, but will they still be perfectly good tomorrow? What about the next year? What about in 2035?

This is why every single Wiki page must have its references properly archived and stored. You have been around since 2016, so you should already know that, but everyone makes mistakes. Please re-add the archives on List of sources for the Crusades and List of early modern works on the Crusades as soon as possible. Thanks for your time.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Barr Theo. I understand where you're coming from now, but it was quite a shock to see these articles so dramatically increase in size. First issue: articles like these are under constant pressure to cut back in size. I've spent a lot of time trying to condense them as there are some Wikipedians who will simply split an article they think is too long. Second issue: how can you possibly convert all citations on all articles to archived versions? There have to be millions if not billions of them. On one of these, you converted 132 out of 549 citations. Why not the rest? Third issue: If you're using a bot (which I'm guessing you are), they are not flawless and, in the past, I've had to check each change for correctness on the articles that I have created. Fourth issue: How can we be sure the archived version is the current one. Encyclopedia Iranica articles are frequently updated as are the unedited pages of the Catholic Encyclopedia. I'm just not seeing the value-added as Wikipedia articles are constantly updated with new information and citations. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Ramla.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Bibliography of the Crusades: Modern Works. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

In creating this article, I consulted numerous other bibliographies on Wikipedia. For example, Bibliography of World War I has no sources. It would be very difficult to cite every entry. I suppose I can give it a try, but I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Basically, the General Works section includes the major works that also have bibliographies. The two articles listed under External Links could also be citations. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Gerry. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this page, it's an excellent tool! I took the freedom to make a few minor technical changes.

I hope you don't mind a suggestion, namely that you make sure it's linked from each article it links to and more (categories, historical periods, kingdoms & empires, Churches, bishops & popes, various other people, wars, books, authors), everything related that has an own enWiki page. I'd also add many more items to the "See also" list. This way you make sure people take notice of it and consult it, otherwise it risks remaining a "forgotten island" to users & editors, and that would really be a pity.

Thanks again, and happy Christmas! Arminden (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Long time no hear. Hope all is well. I've been working on later crusades and chronicles and wished there was a common list of reliable secondary sources. And I think it looks pretty good. Once its gone through some review, I'll start proliferating it. Merry Christmas. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Grampinator. In you new article Chronology of the Crusades after 1400 you have references for "Setting 1976d" but no matching cite. You have 1976a/b/c for "The Papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571" volumes II to IV, all of which are linked to other references. Are the references for 1976a/b/c/d meant to be for volumes I/II/III/IV respectively? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing that "Setton 1976d" should be "Setton 1976c". Let me check. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Grampinator. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Pipera (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert,_Count_of_Hesbaye https://sites.rootsweb.com/~medieval/addcharlENG.pdf is your primary source on page 5 the pedigree chart the entry for Landrade there are ------ this means no conclusive evidence also for Rotrude the same thing ...... with ? provided this mean uncertain parentage. I also would like to remind everyone here to become familiar on how to read pedigree charts. () means conjecture. Broken lines meand a connection and yet to establish the fact. Do I need permission to edit this article to meet what is writen on page 4 C. SETTIPANI, L'ascendance carolingienne : A propos d'ouvrages récents , to appear (1990). The chief author of this work.

More information WikiProject Crusades, Hello! I'm here to reach out to you about WikiProject Crusades, a proposed revival and expansion of the Crusades Task Force. I've noticed your contributions to articles about the crusades and wanted to ask for your input regarding such a project and potential membership. For more information about the idea (and to sign up), please visit the page for the project. Thank you! ...

	WikiProject Crusades
	Hello! I'm here to reach out to you about WikiProject Crusades, a proposed revival and expansion of the Crusades Task Force. I've noticed your contributions to articles about the crusades and wanted to ask for your input regarding such a project and potential membership. For more information about the idea (and to sign up), please visit the page for the project. Thank you!

Close

🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 15:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)