Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:06, 6 July 2014

	Kelpie is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 29, 2014.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 15, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Scotland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

water-kelpie?

I haven't seen the term - always just "kelpie".....just sayin'......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's referenced in the first citation. Eric Corbett 23:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There is also Walter Scott's poem - see pages 298-300. Not sure if it helps with the question below but on p. 300 Appendix - the short paragraph that starts: "It is believed in Angus ...." "... attributes are selected as are appropriate to the scenery." Or am I just making the waters even muddier? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks better in the article now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Kelpie vs Each-Uisge

Plus there's gotta be a quote somewhere distinguishing the former's often mischievous nature vs the latter's uniformly bloodthirsty one. I can add something from Katharine Brigg's Dictionary of Fairies but not quite contrastive enough...will peruse again....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Different authors differ in their accounts, which is what we've tried to convey in the article. There's really no universally accepted definition or description of a kelpie. And as some of the folk tales we've included, in particular the kelpie on the island of Barra demonstrate, the kelpie wasn't universally thought to be bloodthirsty. Eric Corbett 23:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A Hundred Years in the Highlands by Osgood Mackenzie, page 235, says: The story of the celebrated water-kelpie—it was sometimes spoken of as the Each Uisge, and at other times as the Tarbh Oire; Westwood only mentions the Each Uisge once in passing when she's discussing the Water bull. An overall standard definition is pretty much as elusive as the creatures themselves. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Image

Louis Breton's illustration of Orobas, High Priest of Hell is often used as a depiction of a kelpie. I know it isn't one (obviously, they don't exist...I mean, I know it was never meant to be one), but it seems a pity that, when it is constantly described as a horse spirit, there are only images of romantic watery nymphettes and a line drawing of something that could be a depiction of something similar. Could you not include the Breton image with some explanatory text or would that be a breach of the OR rule? Belle (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Extensive searches were undertaken by several editors with considerable experience in sourcing suitable, correctly licensed, images - Orobas has no connection whatsoever with kelpies so it would be inappropriate for the image to be included. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Mass Reversion of Improvements

Hello. Recently I swept through this article and found all sorts of issues: Links to an amateur website about "the paranormal", an inter-Misplaced Pages "reference", a note on werewolves that wasn't in the reference cited (and was also rather confused), a reference to the pseudo-science of cryptozoology, "Myth", "fable", and "folktale" used as synonyms, a title was employed, modern nations were referred to as ancient in one incident, and "folktale" was written as "folk tale". I even took the time to check up on a variety of the references used, and I expanded from a reference and added a quote from it, as the original write up from it was also rather confused. Personally, I've got a background in folkloristics and I've written a ton of related articles, and all of these changes were thoroughly commented on in my edit summaries. However, this was all mass reverted with the explanation of "unsourced, DABs". Nothing "unsourced" was added; in fact, unsourced material was *removed*. DABs can easily be fixed. So what's the deal? :bloodofox: (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The deal is that this article is on the front page today after having recently been reviewed favourably by independent editors. There may be errors or deficiencies in the article despite that. However, since there is a general consensus that the article is in good shape, it is not appropriate to make major revisions right now. Please raise issues on the talk page before doing re-writes. Also, as you will see, petty vandalism has been going on today, as is usually the case. This makes it especially difficult to deal with constructive changes at this very moment. I'm sure in a day or so's time the editors of this article will be very pleased to have your knowledgable contributions. Thank you for your help on this. Thincat (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

While this is a thoughtful response and I appreciate that, your reversion edit summary was insulting ( ("children came out for playtime")). The reversion consisted solely of my edits and no vandalism. Regardless of how many editors have seen this article, it was passed with clear problems. This appears to be an example of an FA article that needed a little more time in the cooker before being featured. The reference to cryptozoology and some of these other problems should have been caught at the very least. As for it being on the front page right now, until it's locked, it's still perfectly editable; editors just need to look at what they're reverting before they do so. Sometimes these articles benefit a lot by drawing the attention of specialists by way of this process. I mean, at the end of the day, we're here to improve the article, not blindly revert all edits to it until a few days have passed, aren't we? :bloodofox: (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for the edit summary which, as I can now see, was not appropriate (or suitable under any circumstances). I am sorry about that. However, there had been a number of vandalism edits that several people had been trying to revert, sometimes not realising the extent of the problems. The reversion I made, although it undid some of your work, also restored the lead section, which had been entirely removed. My reversion covered a large number of edits and reversions, some good, many bad. People have to work hard to keep main page articles from being ruined and so problems like this can arise. Thincat (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

... and it may be of little comfort to you but the substantive edit I made (adding a reference) has also disappeared in the mêlée! I'm not surprised (this has happened to me before when I have made main page edits) and I am certainly not blaming anyone. I shall restore it in a few days' time. Thincat (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason I reverted to the original copy this morning was because there had been a number of edits - not by Bloodofox - which introduced unsourced information. I have since been out for the day and have only just returned. As Thincat states above, we will be more than willing to consider some suggested edits when we can go through each suggestion slowly. I have again reverted to the original copy. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please fix the error! I was not able to.

Quoting from the article:

"The kelpie has counterparts across the world, such as the wihwin of South America," Do not exist such thing like wihwin in any country in South America. But do exist Iara!: http://es.wikipedia.org/Iara_(folklore) http://en.wikipedia.org/Iara_(mythology) Why my fix of the kelpie article was cleared?

• Misplaced Pages cannot be used as a reference, so your edit was reverted. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just reverted your addition of this material and left an explanatory note on your talk page. Please do not add it again as it is not referenced. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you reply. But "wihwin of South America" is not referenced too! 03:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.145.227.231 (talk)

It is correctly referenced in the body copy - see ref #9. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wihwin

@Sagaciousphil: I am re-inserting the Rose reference, which unlike the Varner reference (which requires a subscription) provides readily available information about the wihwin, which I have added as a quote in the ref. Please do not delete it again. --Thnidu (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The Varner reference is a reliable source; the quote from Rose about the wihwin is not necessary as this article is about, and should remain focused on, the kelpie. I am therefore reverting it. Kindly respect this and do not change it. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sagaciousphil: I've just thanked you. That's for the fuller explanation. But please restore the redlink. As I understand policy (not looking up the page now, mobile editing is already enough of a pain), there's nothing wrong with a redlink to an unwritten page of reasonable notability. --Thnidu (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Okay - I have restored the red link meantime; however, I personally hate red links unless there is a strong likelihood an article will be generated because I feel if there is sufficient notability at the very least a stub should be created. I'll ping Drmies as he can often magic sources "out of thin air" and American mythology is really not something I know about. There is already the passing mention in Varner plus the Rose ref - which, by the way, I can't see even when logged into my Amazon account and trying to utilise the 'Look inside' feature - but hopefully if at least one more reliable ref can be found, a very basic stub can be created to turn the red link blue. I'll see what more I can do in the morning (it's late here). SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC) PS: Kudos for editing on a mobile - I struggle even on my iPad, let alone my iPhone!

@Sagaciousphil: Thanks. —I can't imagine why you can't see the Google Books link... say, you said "Amazon": did you try the link I put? If it doesn't work, try this fuller one:

http://books.google.com/books?id=GKrACS_n86wC&pg=PA394&lpg=PA419&dq=wihwin#v=onepage&q=wihwin&f=false

I found plenty of sources with a simple Google search for wihwin. --Thnidu (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did try the links. The problem is that Google doesn't show the same thing to everyone - this essay briefly explains it; sometimes Amazon can give a bit more access so I often check there as well. I will try to create a very basic stub for it this morning but the emphasis is on basic/minimal as I have no interest in the wihwin at all (and to be honest, I don't really think the onus is on me). SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

In my 08:23, 3 July 2014 edit of the Kelpie#Etymology section was reverted, apparently on a kill-on-sight policy, without real examination of what I was trying to accomplish, but I will list below the issues and flaws I was trying to address.

1. . Gaelic etymology was unsourced.

   → Neither OED nor Mackillop was inline cited, and I chose to use Skeat's original paper. Perhaps you meant Harper's Online Etymological Dictionary at the end of parag to somehow point back to the first sentence, not sure, but some kind of fix was needed.

   The Gaelic etymology is sourced to the OED. Eric Corbett 06:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

2. . Paper was cited using chapter heading name instead of paper title

   →Carlyle's paper (Transac. 1788) was cited using the chapter heading "An introduction to an Ode of Mr Collins," but the paper's title (according to Contents) is "An Ode on the Popular Superstions of the Highlands,.. etc."

   →This mistake also propounded another omission, and the actual title of Collins' ode fails to be mentioned anywhere in your edit.

3. . Collins' poem "manuscript.. from around 1759" not accurate

   →In OED online, "a1759" does not stand for "around 1759" but "ante 1759". The OED print edition gave a "1747" date, which made me enquire what the situation was. "Before 1759" just meant some time before the poet's death, and I preferred the "1749" date is given by Carlye's paper. Several books of within the past five years or so also give "1749-50" as date of composition.

   Corrected. Eric Corbett 06:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

4. . 1993 date of DOST arbitrary

   →I'm not sure about the exact publication dates for A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue, but Part XVII "Judge— Knot" 1957?, Volume 3 H—L 1963 and 1967? so giving a date of some later edition seems arbitrary, and I preferred to just omit it.

   Addressed now, with a link added to the definition in the online edition of the DOST. Eric Corbett 13:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

5. . then spelled kaelpie

   →This reads as if everyone spelt it that way at that time.

   As this is the first recorded use of the term then everyone did so far as we're concerned. Eric Corbett 06:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

6. . Place names Kelpie hoall and Kelpie Hooll

   →"place names" (in the plural) is misleading. These are two variant spellings of one place name (singular) from the same record. Both your Margaret Scott's website and DOST (http://http://dsl.ac.uk) use the singular. Also note that Ms. Scott's spelling differs with "Kelpiehooll" found on DOST online, so this may need verifying in print.

   Whether or not these two place names refer to the same location is irrelevant, they are two place names. Place names are now consistent with those given in the DOST. Eric Corbett 06:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

7. .Harper's Online Etymological Dictionary

   →I'm not exactly sure why this source has to be brought in, attached with a blurb of Mr. Harper being the founder in the body of the article, you need to explain to the rest of us. I guessed that it was because its content was a knockoff of what the Oxford English Dictionary had to say (even sharing the same intiials!), except this site was freely viewable and not subscriptions only.

   As it's really nothing to do with etymology I've moved that sentence to the beginning of the following paragraph. Eric Corbett 06:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

--Kiyoweap (talk)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Mythology articles
• Low-importance Mythology articles
• FA-Class Scotland articles
• Low-importance Scotland articles
• All WikiProject Scotland pages