Can we discuss some of the recent, rather sweeping changes here? I'm unclear on what the goal is. Thanks. -CorbieV☊☼16:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Corbie. I excluded the Gaels [sic], Britons, and Picts from the list of Ancient Celts simply because they were not Ancient Celts. Their links to the Celts were linguistic and cultural, not ethnic. Not until the 18th century were any links made between the non-English peoples of these isles, and the Celts of Gaul, Italia, and Iberia. No such relationship is ever expounded in the extensive Gaelic literature (both Irish and British), nor in surviving Brythonic literature of Britain and Brittany. Treating them all as 'Celts' is a mistake.Fergananim (talk)17:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I see what you want to do here. I think I was just not immediately seeing where you wanted to draw the line on Ancient and Continental vs Insular, and I'm of the school that it's best to define Celtic linguistically/culturally than by ethnicity (and I so do not want to get pulled in to the recent DNA dramas that are going on on other pages). How can we best respect the differing schools of thought here?
- I have to admit, I'm a bit stumped on how to best overhaul this template. It definitely needs cleanup. One thing I donot want to do is convert it to a sidebar. On some articles the formatting is better served by having the option of putting this at the bottom of the page, so maybe we can overhaul this some but retain this format. I guess just go ahead with what you planned, try to cover the linguistics as well, and if any of us disagree we'll get bold and chime in. :) Thanks for your patience. -CorbieV☊☼18:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
