Talk:Pre-Roman Iron Age (Northern Europe)

[Untitled]
''I believe it is CRUCIAL to point out the roots of the "Pre-Roman Iron Age" IN CONTEXT. You will note that iron was brought to NW Europe by the Celts... who, when they replaced the "Atlantic Bronze Age" in Gaul and Britain in c. 600 BCE brought iron to those lands. THUS, the "strong La Tene and Halstadtt" influences seen in the Germanic Pre-Roman Iron Age are COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE... the Celts were a power in their day and they influenced (conquered) Gaul, Britain and continental Germany all around the same time... around 600 BCE, around the time of Baalovesus.''

This fragment has not been created as part of any existing continuous history. It does not stand on its own. Where should it be merged? Wetman 08:21, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Is "Montelius" Oscar Montelius 1843 - 1921. What is the modern name for this culture? What does "pre-Roman" mean in an area that never was Roman? Why is "Scandinavia" not in the title? Wetman 09:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * "The name "Pre-Roman Iron Age" signifies that it was before the influx of Roman imports into Scandinavia. The following age, which I will write on in due time is called the "Roman Iron Age" because there were Roman imports and Rome was very powerful. The age following it is called the "Germanic Iron Age", but some also call it the "Age of Migrations" or even the "Heroic Age"." (User:Wiglaf responding on my Talk page Wetman 18:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC))
 * There is also a Pre-Roman iron age in Britain which is not mentioned in the article. Rmhermen 00:48, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding relevant information.--Wiglaf 19:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A better title?

 * A possible better title: Archaeology of Iron-Age Scandinavia Would there be any objection to such a plain description? It is archaeology, isn't it?  Wetman 01:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes it is archaeology. The problem is that the culture(s) that are covered by this term (in the Montelian sense) did not exist exclusively in Scandinavia, but also in northern Germany, nor did they exist in all of Scandinavia. It was only in the southern half, and along the coasts, that we can talk of Pre-Roman Iron Age. In most the northern half there was a hunter and gatherer culture (probably Fenno-Ugric). If I'd rename it, it would rather be Pre-Roman Iron Age (Germanic) (since it probably corresponded to the distribution of Germanic languages at the time). However, I am not sure that the term applies to areas where Germanic tribes mixed with previous cultures, such as the Wielbark/Willenberg culture in northern Poland. We could wait with the naming until someone makes a page about the British Pre-Roman Age, then we could make Pre-Roman Iron Age into a disambiguation page.--Wiglaf 19:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The Pre-Roman Iron Age in Britain is currently treated at Prehistoric Britain, also not a very felicitous title. The immediately preceding culture is described at Nordic Bronze Age: why isn't Nordic Iron Age acceptable? --Wetman 03:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * is there such a thing as "Roman Iron Age"? according to Iron Age, the iron age is held to end with the roman conquest (while of course the romans metallurgically belong to the iron age, the term generally implies prehistoric times – which is strange, because "Bronze Age" is not restricted in such a way) dab 14:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, during the Roman domination of Europe, the Scandinavians and the Germans lived in the Roman Iron Age according to the still used Montelian time-line. This age was succeeded by the Age Migrations. The naming is logic since the influence of the Romans was not restricted to the Roman empire but was felt in the areas of Germanic settlement. IIRC, the terminology for cooking was largely borrowed into the Germanic languages during the Roman Iron Age. I did not invent the name. I am only introducing a used term into Wikipedia.--Wiglaf 14:58, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * A sub-section in the entry could work in this material, to orient the ordinary reader. The references to contemporary cultures outside the area covered are helpful. Are there some sites that could be described briefly? External links? The Dejbjerg wagon is unfamiliar: a full-size wagon? a votive object? a funerary wagon? If the term describes the level of technology, then that should be described and contrasted with the Roman Iron Age that followed. Wetman 02:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Good ideas. I will get back when I have finished my present project.--Wiglaf 08:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Further criticisms

 * "(also called the Celtic Iron Age)" I removed this interpolation. The map still seems specifically to exclude Celtic regions, and isn't the whole point (not yet being clearly made) that this culture is not the La Tène culture?
 * "(ca 600 BC or 500 BC - ca 1 AD)" Is "ca 1 AD" a code for the beginning of the Roman Iron Age? What makes the date so precise?
 * "Fimbul winter" I removed this ancient expression, which for Rutger Sernander in the 1920s linked the sudden onset of cold to the saga cycles: a red herring here, unless you want to make it the specific theme of a paragraph. This sudden climatic chill (ca 600BC?) must have a standard name in current climatology: use it in the text, and I'll make a hyperlink, and I'll make a stub article for it, so that identifying it further doesn't hamper your narrative here. I linked the Gundestrup Cauldron. Tollund Man and the Hjortspring boat are mentioned: have other Pre-Roman Iron Age sites and finds already received articles at Wikipedia?

I've made notes in the html of the article: I hope you'll take them seriously, as I tried to make them specific and clear. --Wetman 03:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The name Celtic Iron Age is a factual term that is used about this age, just like the next age is called the Roman Iron Age. The dating varies. It is 600 BC for northern Germany and 500 BC for Norway, but this article should have the appropriate geographic scope. The date 1 AD, is just convention, and has little to do with any "objective" change. As for the name of the climate change, I don't know if it has a proper English term, but I will find out.--Wiglaf 07:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Celtic Iron Age you refer to is the La Tène culture isn't it? Wouldn't it help the reader to say so? --Wetman 19:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, no. I have not invented this set of terminology. When Scandinavian archaeologists talk of the Celtic Iron Age, they are talking of this period in Northern Europe and not the La Tène culture. I understand that this kind of terminology is confusing, but I think that the article should state what the time and culture is called.--Wiglaf 19:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * An Iron Age Celtic culture in Scandinavia will make an interesting article. --Wetman 07:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding. The name Celtic in the expression Celtic Iron Age only refers to the fact that northern Europe was under heavy Celtic influence, cf. the Ambrones.--Wiglaf 07:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

timeline
the timeline seems offtopic here. What you'd expect would be a timeline of the Pre-Roman Iron Age, not a gigantic timeline where the P-R IA is featured as a single item. dab (&#5839;) 13:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove the introduction
I think that the references to nineteenth century danish archeologists should either be deleted moved to a special section at the end of the article. They make the introduction unnecesarily long and confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.184.26.120 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Jastorf expansions
It says: "Its area was first delimited by the Weser in the West, the Aller in the South, and the Danish Islands in the North, but later it expanded southwards towards the Rhine and the Harz." According to the information illustrated on maps the Jastorf culture never passed the Harz. Please supply any sourced reference on this theory that Jastorf expanded to the Rhine. I don't think this is established truth, I suspect OR. Rokus01 06:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did an extensive websearch for sources now. To be fair, I found no reference that the culture expanded beyond Lower Saxony. I thus agree that any claim concerning the Rhine needs a clear reference. Otoh, since the Harz actually forms the southwerstern boundary of Lower Saxony, I see no problem with keeping it in (the Weser in fact originates to the south and the west of the Harz). dab (𒁳) 19:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * per Image:Pre-roman iron age (map).PNG, our reference for the Jastorf culture extending west to the Rhine delta appears to be the the Harper Atlas of World History (1993), ISBN 978-0062700674. dab (𒁳) 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01 20:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First: thanks for the improvements
 * About the map: I recognize the extend of Northern Bronze Age as it appears in articles nowadays, but this does not fit the description and the colors, nor the extend of Jastorf.
 * the img discription claims the purple area is Jastorf. I did not verify this, you'll have to consult the Harper Atlas. dab (𒁳) 21:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Of this atlas I can read on the web that the contributors were encouraged "to give alternate positions on matters where there is not a generally accepted opinion" (p6). Unfortunately I can't check either and I propose to rather adhere to primary sources on this matter.Rokus01 06:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Correction: this quote is from another Harper Atlas edition. However, I don't think the Harper policy would have been any different in this one. Rokus01 06:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

look, there are two separate points: If you can show that the map isn't faithful, we'll remove it. If the map does give the Harper scenario faithfully, that's at least one notable source. It's not like we can choose from dozens of published maps of the Jastorf culture: it will then be up to you to present another respectable source. I am not sure why you are pressing this point so much: it is impossible to give exact boundaries of archaeological cultures. And if you want to argue that the Netherlands was part of proto-Germanic culture, as you seem to be doing, you will want to emphasize, not de-emphasize, Jastorf-Nordwestblock connections. At the end of the day, the lower Rhine was at the fringe of Jastorf/Proto-Germanic influence, and it is impossible to say when the area became linguistically Germanic. No amount of map-tuning is going to change the fact that we simply don't know. dab (𒁳) 07:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * does the map faithfully represent the "Jastorf" area given in the Harper atlas?
 * if it does, is it in conflict with other sources?

At least the map conflicts with the written description of the area. However, more important is how the Jastorf culture is to be interpretated, ethnic, archeologic or cultural, since I would agree to the area being ethnically germanic. However, since the archeological difference between Germanic and Celtic culture is not always as obvious as this article suggests, ethnic division lines on such an archeological "Jastorf" basis are artificial, intuitive and tentative by definition. Worse, all efforts to link Jastorf with proto-Germanic instead of Germanic insinuate a claim of ethnic ancestry not supported by general opinion, clear evidence or definition. You think it is immaterial. I think it is essential. Britannica confirms there is no clue to assign the Germanic soundshift in any period including Bronze Age. So when? The timegap between proto-indo european and proto-germanic will remain huge, wherever you put proto-germanic on the timeline. At least, the sources I know of all conveniently use the nomer Germanic to Jastorf (or whatever Iron Age "Germanic" culture), not proto-germanic, I think this should be the same here for not giving too much weight to the point of view that Germanic could only have originated in the Iron Age. I repeat, according to general accepted thinking, Germanic still could have existed or originated in Bronze Age. The difference to proto germanic would be immaterial only in case the genesis of a unified Germanic happened by some kind of instantaneous process of diffusion, anywhere anytime. Instead, your view is reflected by the tendency to emphasis Jastorf military expansions and insert a recent germanization (6th-1st BC?). I repeat, no such intrusive links are evident to the west nor to other areas across the Harz. Proponents of such impact of Jastorf expansions can't rely anymore on a lack of excavations to push their tentative theories. The area is well searched and investigated. So why? Assuming one cultural area that shared linguistic developments by diffusion, neither the Nordwestblock nor Rhineland need a special link to Jastorf at all. It would be enough to consider (and assume, probably the only drawback to this alternative) the early common Indo European origin and the traditional cultural ties already in place during the Northern Bronze Age. With scholars still fighting to resolve the issue (with progress both on understanding linguistics and archeology), why should we pretend to know it all and insist on a particular view already? Rokus01 20:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The linguistic side is pretty clear. The Proto-Germanic stage we can reconstruct cannot be particularly old, as our oldest attestations (especially runic inscriptions, but also the classical Nebenüberlieferung) are close to this reconstruction. Earlier stages can only be reached indirectly and are much less certain. Old loanwords in Uralic languages may represent Bronze-Age stages of still unshifted, still laryngeal-containing (Pre-Proto-)Germanic, but the precise affiliation of the language(s) or dialect(s) represented in these loans is by no means clear and they may represent a rather generic, undifferentiated northern Indo-European dialect or group of dialects that may or may not include dialects ancestral to Proto-Germanic. It is frustrating to deal with the period in between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic (likely about 3000 years at least!) because in the absence of close relatives of Germanic, and of revealing loanword layers (except perhaps in Uralic), almost nothing reasonably certain can be known about this period. So we're on safe ground only from the time Proto-Germanic proper (the latest common ancestral stage of the Germanic languages) begins to diverge. It is unlikely that this already happened in the time of the Nordic Bronze Age, perhaps at its very end. However, it is completely unclear what kind of Indo-European was spoken in Bronze Age Scandinavia. It's right in the dreaded gap. My guess would be some collateral branch to Germanic, like Sabellic (or Italic in general) to Latin, not necessarily a direct ancestor. (Again, this could be the source, or part of the source, of the Northwest Indo-European loanwords in Uralic.) Keep in mind early loanwords from Celtic such as *Walhaz, which indicate that the consonant shift is not all that old. The Pre-Roman Iron Age is the most likely period when Proto-Germanic proper was spoken, and when the divergence began. So it is reasonable to identify the Jastorf culture with the earliest speakers of Germanic as we know it (and can recognise by the presence of the consonant shift). It is absolutely essential to keep the distinction between Proto-Germanic proper and its ancestral stages in mind. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

removed section
I have removed this unsourced section:
 * Strong evidence contrary to the above paragraph comes from the fact that "Germanic tribes" were apparently quite content to remain in comparatively improverished conditions for at least a thousand years before their first appearance in southern European consciousness. Given that rich territories to the south were within a few weeks march -- at most -- of the Jastorf locale, this points to the conclusion that these northern peoples were hardly aggressive for the greater part of pre-history. What may have set off aggressive behavior on the part of these more northern Germanic speakers was the example set by Gauls, Greeks and Romans. The organization and communication needed to mount a serious attack was probably imported from the south. As far as the expansion of Jastorf, the first impression would that it would have been an expansion into the relatively unpopulated no-man's land of central Europe. (See John Collis, The European Iron Age) Discredited 19th Century thinking suggesting some kind of innate warrior mentality often leads to poor historical analysis.

This section appears to contradict what we know about the Teutons and the Cimbri, and the claim that pre-historic peoples were happy to live peacefully in "improverished" (sic.) conditions until educated to organize warfare by Celts and Romans appears to be original reseach. Moreover, I strongly doubt that the Celts were so incredibly superior to the Germanics culturally that the former were able to wage war while the latter were incapable of such organizatorial feats.--Berig 08:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What we know about Teutons and Cimbri came to us through the words of their enemies. The famous aggression of Germanic could be partly religious and typical to barbarians, and partly due to the countless annihilation wars waged against them by the Romans, the very powerful influence of the Roman military that recruited Germanics, the wealth bestowed on Germanics that cooperated with Rome or fought in name of Rome etc. Very often the Great Mgrations and the Viking outrages are looked upon as "typical". However, remember the conversion of Odin from god of creation, poetry and arts to god of war occurred in more recent times. The upheavels of history are never typical. I think it is worthwhile to keep a section dedicated to both sides of the story. Rokus01 09:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * this is pure editorializing. Sure, this is prehistory, there is a lot of room for speculation. This is however no excuse to compose rambling essays. In particular "Discredited 19th Century thinking suggesting some kind of innate warrior mentality often leads to poor historical analysis" is nonsense in this context. This simply doesn't apply to the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Not even the 19th century could depict a culture without any weapon finds as warrior society. The warrior aspect emerges in the Roman Iron Age, which is undoubtedly Germanic, and which from the 2nd century AD indeed shows a predilection for weapons. So if you must shoot down 19th century strawmen, please do it on the pertinent article at least. dab (𒁳) 09:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The rambling essay was already here and I expect anybody removing one thing to do some effort in putting something better: anybody who fail (or refuse) to understand alternative arguments I consider disqualified to destroy information. The intervention more or less solved this, congratulations. By the way : "Moreover, I strongly doubt that the Celts were so incredibly superior to the Germanics culturally that the former were able to wage war while the latter were incapable of such organizatorial feats."?? Is superiority already measured in the ability to wage war? Now my love for truth seems to be mistaken for ideology, I really wonder what kind of non-ideology you would call such a statement. And, worse, whether I have to work double to continue checking ideological edits of this signature. Rokus01 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Superiority" in a culture usually means "technological superiority". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Historic referenses
Referenses from old scriptures about The slow transition from hunter and gather cultures and slash and burn shifting cultivation cultures to stationary agriculture due to the iron plow--Svedjebruk (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Machine translation from Danish?
This article is a mess. It seems to have been machine translated from Danish. The Suebians are for instance called sveberne. And someone just "corrected" latinerne -- which refers to the inhabitants of 1st millennium BC Latium -- to "Latinos"... Martin Rundkvist (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that the whole section was inserted in one fell swoop in this edit. (The rest of the article is actually fine, and even the section in question is mostly OK language-wise; I think it's only one paragraph which was machine-translated or written by a person not very competent in English, and it included "latinos" right from the start.) I am considering deleting it outright, as it strays far from the topic, but it was evidently a lot of work and added in good faith (although copyvio remains a concern), so I am hesitating (even though it would be preserved in the history).
 * I also agree that speaking of Germanic tribes in 750 BC is outdated at best, and ahistorical; this date likely precedes even the Germanic consonant shift. Never been a fan of this map, even though it is still used in other articles, such as Iron Age Scandinavia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I just realised that the off-topic section was also inserted by Svedjebruk into Iron Age, from which it was later split off (by Dbachmann) into Iron Age Europe (the split-off probably would not have happened, had the rambling section simply been deleted before). So it is a complete duplicate. At least it fits better there, but the rather questionable quality of the prose and the content make me wonder whether it might not be better off removed there as well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Scandinavia vs. Netherlands and northern Germany
I came here to elaborate more on the pre-Roman Iron Age from a Danish (Scandinavian) view. From my sources (Jørgen Jensen and others) which is solid and credible, it appears that there is some major differences between how this era unfolded in Scandinavia and "the southern regions" (Netherlands and northern Germany). Enough differences that the article would probably benefit from a separation. Not in two separate articles, but with separate sections. I am sure there are many similarities as well of course.

I might even suspect there to be major differences within Scandinavia also. In particular because bog ore is/was only to be found in south-western Jutland in larger quantities. But I am not very knowledgeable about how the Iron Age unfolded in either Norway or Sweden at the moment.

Important differences between Scandinavia (S) and "the southern regions" (tsr):
 * Initial population decline in S. Expansion in tsr.
 * The introduction of a well established iron industry in S was very slow.

Important and deep changes in S. Not aware if the same happened in tsr:
 * A dramatic change in agricultural practices.
 * The arable land was deforested and the ecology was deeply affected. Especially in Denmark.
 * Slave workers was introduced.
 * Social changes. focus shifted from lineage (broadly) to immediate family and community.

Guess work:
 * Perhaps tsr traded more and had more contact with the central European Celtic tribes?

RhinoMind (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Northern Europe?
Perhaps northern Europe is too broad a geographical term to be of use here?

Northern Europe also includes Great Britain, Finland, The Baltic states and more. To be complete, this article should also include a treatment of Celtic and Slavic tribes as well. Is that realistic or desirable? RhinoMind (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have moved a post from the article itself to TalkPage. Is this the right place to put it? RhinoMind (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you mean, Prehistoric Britain? as your example stated "Pre Roman" the article it self another USAGE of Classical Period so Not only Roman (as the statement of User:RioHondo, or Greeks plus, it is been stated as Classical period followed by "Pre-roman." ? and africa is a continent it self not a country bcoz all of the continents have been encircled by explorers, That even i can say "Pre Colonial Southeast Asia" right? . where talking about a single country  (Philipandrew2 (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC))

Move to Pre-Roman Iron Age of Northern Europe
That is, rightly, the bolded bit in the first line, and should be the article title. The article was originally a translation (from Dutch I think), & most of the sources are still in languages "local" to the subject. In those languages I'm sure "of Northern Europe" is generally understood, but that is not so in English, where "Pre-Roman Iron Age" is quite often used describing a whole range of regions, many nowhere near Northern Europe. If no one objects I'll move it in a few days. Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Good idea, but... Before limiting this article to Northern Europe and how the Pre-Roman Iron Age unfolded there, we need a general article on the subject. You say that a Pre-Roman Iron Age also unfolded elsewehere, outside of Northerne Europe. This kind of information would be a very good idea to put up here first. When the general information is up, we can probably proceed with a seperate article about Northern Europe specifically. RhinoMind (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. We already have "a seperate article about Northern Europe specifically" here. The question is what it should be called. We have other articles on IA cultures in various places - see Iron Age Europe and articles linked from there. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right, but where is the general article? I guess there are two equally important jobs here:


 * 1. Create a general article on the Pre-Roman Iron Age, which includes the issues that you raise in your initial post above. You have argued that other places outside of Northern Europe also had an era called Pre-Roman Iron Age. Perhaps you could provide a couple of sources on this? In the general article on the Iron Age in Europe it says specifically that this term only applies to Northern Europe. If it is not true, we need some sources and new explanations.
 * 2. Re-name and move this page as you suggest.


 * I do not think one of these could do without the other. RhinoMind (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If it does, then our article is wrong. Examples are very easy to find:

Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 9, No. 1 (March 1995), pp. 47-98 - these are just the first hits on various searches. This article is ONLY about Northern Europe (narrowly defined). That is a perfectly good subject for an article, but it should be correctly titled, using the terminology found in English, not Danish. All I want to do is to bring the title in line with the contents. I really don't see the difficulty. If you want to create another article, by all means go ahead, although I think improving Iron Age Europe would be much better. Normally any local period post-Roman conquest is called "Roman", not "Iron Age" at all. Likewise medieval or later periods that are still in the "Iron Age" in terms of technology. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "The Pre-Roman Iron Age in Britain and Ireland (ca. 800 B.C. to A.D. 100): An Overview", J. D. Hill
 * Talks about Britain and France (and not Scandinavia)
 * Spain
 * Spain
 * Ireland, Britain
 * I've just noticed Roman Iron Age, which is just as crazy. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I should have added that what I am proposing is a return to the original title, before an undiscussed move by Krakkos in 2012. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We have quite a few articles on Britain that use "Late pre-Roman Iron Age (LPRIA)", eg Prehistoric Britain. We really either need to rename this article or rewrite it. There's a plethora of sources. Doug Weller  talk 14:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Started an AfD for Roman Iron Age Articles for deletion/Roman Iron Age. Doug Weller  talk 15:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ThatAfD was closed as consensus to keep and Move to Iron Age in northern Europe, and I am moving this is accordance.  DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the undiscussed move was poorly advised, there was grounds for discussion, but it is a good idea to get a grasp of the topic before blindly moving stuff around, it tends to not improve the situation even if the original concern was valid. The obvious merge target for this bunch of stub-like pages would be List of archaeological periods (Northern Europe), but it should be expanded to an actual article (instead of a list), e.g. Archaeology of Northern Europe. --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, undiscussed moves are a bad idea, especially when they go against a recent consensus. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)