Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 6

Lead image (2)
NOTE: If enough people support a change of image to another image, it will happen...... Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC) (Cut and pasted from above by Amandajm (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC))

It seems that six regular editors, as well as six more unsigned editors have raised the matter of the unsuitability of the reproduction Sutton Hoo helmet as the lead imsge.

Arguments (and a couple of responses to make the context clear) by the twelve different individuals who have objected to the continued use of the present lead over the last year have been collected below. That is twelve people who have said that the current lead image is unsuitable. How many more are needed before the message gets across?

If you don't want to reread the cases put forward by the twelve editors, because you have done so already, skip to the bottom for their names/etc.


 * ... and the pic is from a fake? Why not a Robin Hood film screenshot? Why before 1000AD? All this doesnt make any sense. Pedro (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be used elsewhere in the article, but use the real thing instead!--Pedro (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, although the replica is good, we don't know how much historically accurate it is, but in any case the original is much more preferable, particularly in the lead. Wikipedia is not some kind of advertising agency, that picks and promotes modern polished stuff over historical one. The replica would suit to Sutton Hoo in my view (where it's not currently used). If we are using a single image here, let it show a genuine object apart from being eye-catching. Brandmeistertalk 18:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the original helmet survived, it would be certainly better to place the original rather than replica. Btw, the caption for the current lead pic is buried and appears only after scroll-down (at least in my Mozilla browser), so as it is the pic may be confusing for some readers, who may think that the helmet is original. Brandmeistertalk  22:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The current image is likewise very early and unrepresentative. It's a fantastic photograph, but it's a bad illustration for this topic. The Manual of Style for lead images states "Editors should avoid using images that readers would not have expected to see when navigating to the page." The principle of least astonishment suggests we should use something popularly associated with the Middle Ages, and an obscure helmet from the fringes of the area in question is hardly that. I agree that the photo of the knight armor is not as good a photograph (it's actually less dark than the current one, but has awkward lighting and framing), but the subject itself is better. And, since lead photos tend to emphasize the highest achievements of a topic, they tend to be late examples in any event. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am not a regular editor/user of wikipedia - but it seems apparent to me that the lead picture should be removed. I have read through the previous discussion above - and it seems pretty clear that a great deal of people have argued consistently against its inclusion, yet the image remains due to one or two editors arguing that it is "stylistically striking". As has been pointed out countless times - this helmet is a fantastic and iconic image for Anglo-Saxon topics - not for topics that include the whole of Europe. Non-english people would find this very biased, armour from a specific country should not represent the whole continent. I appreciate the arguments being made that point out there is no overall image that could represent the whole period. However - out of the choice that we have, Sutton Hoo is a great deal more POV than an image of a generic peasant/castle would be. I am NOT suggesting that we choose something from another country - but something that is instantly and visually recognisable as something from the Middle Ages. This Sutton Hoo helmet does not fulfill that purpose - before I wrote this, I had to find out what it was! ::::This should not happen for an article as broad as the middle ages.
 * Removing image for now, pending discussion we can choose an alternative. 94.31.32.30 (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC) (But the image was returned)
 * NOTE: This unnamed editor argued at length to have the image removed, and was continually dismissed, resulting in the following comment from another unsigned editor:


 * Wait, seriously why is there so much hostility to this guy? It's pretty clear that the lead image isn't really appropriate - why is the debate being shut down? 86.173.69.123 (talk) 22:09, 23 August  2013 (UTC)
 * 94.31, the arguments against the lead image are very weak. Incessant repetition isn't making them stronger. The current image is relevant to the topic and because it looks really good. We try to write good prose, and we certainly prefer images that are pleasing to look at over dull historical maps of dubious accuracy. Peter
 * Peter, my understanding was that it wasn't that "the arguments against the lead image are very weak", but that the proposed replacements themselves were in one way or another problematic. At least, that seemed to me what Ealdgyth was saying.  Obviously, a lot of people have issues with the image, and the people who do also seem to know their stuff, and are not just Randy in Boise.  Why set the hurdle at "a Carolignian artefact that looks as good as the current Sutton Hoo-pic" rather than "a Carolignian artefact that looks good"? Curly Turkey


 * Let me point out very strongly that using a 20th century reproduction objects when thousands of genuine objects exist from the period is just plain reprehensible. [User:Amandajm|Amandajm]] (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But how faithful is the replica? I made Amanda's complaint back in the first round of the lead image controversy. I wonder if people would care if our article on Ancient Egypt led with an image of a replica Sphinx? Srnec (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, can't trust the British Museum to get things like that right. Good thing we have sharp-eyed Wikipedians to put things right. Peter Isotalo 21:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Peter: You completely misunderstood the concern. The key sentence was the last one: "I wonder if people would care if our article on Ancient Egypt led with an image of a replica Sphinx?"—which your snark completely fails to address. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To suggest that a replica is as valuable as the "original" within the context of a history article is ridiculous. In the case of the Sutton Hoo helmet, the replica plays a very significant part in educating the public about a very badly deteriorated object.  It is highly relevant to the interpretation of that object. But in the context of an encyclopedic article on the Middle Ages, it is of far far less value than would be an image of any one of the thousands of extremely well preserved genuine medieval helmets that exist, all across Europe. ........ Will the team who is working on this get your act together and take the objections against a non-geniune object as the lead, seriously? I presume it's morning in the UK by now, so perhaps someone will wake up and fix it! Amandajm (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's an outsider's layman POV. The image is too large, the lighting is too harsh, it is sterile, ugly and boring. It looks like someone just took a picture at a museum while on vacation and was so proud of it they decided it just had to be on wiki somewhere. It wouldn't make me want to read the article on an already dry subject. I couldn't believe it when I read that it was a replica. It shouldn't even be used as the lead image on an article on the actual object, it should be at the bottom with a caption that it is an artists interpretation of what the actual helmet once looked like. I can't believe the editors at wiki would allow someone to hold everyone hostage like this.99.239.72.120 (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Sutton Hoo replica helmet, has a valid place, in the context of interpreting the genuine Sutton Hoo helmet. In a showcase of the BM, right near the genuine object, with a sign saying, this is how the helmet was probably put together (note that the first reconstruction has now been deemed wrong), there, in that context, it is a very useful object.  There is always a place for reconstructions as instruments of teaching. .... But in this context, there is no need to use that replica to explain anything to your reading public. Knowing how one single 7th century helmet may have looked (provided they got it right the second time around) is notessential or even important in the whole breadth of the Middle Ages. So find something genuine.  Amandajm (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that my previous comments were deleted (some strange suggestion about them being a troll, they were not (I didn't mind the person who decided to add them to a roll-up due to being sarcastic They were sarcastic - but NOT a troll.)).  They were seriously illustrating the issue when you accept a replica as being a good example in an inappropriate context.  Peter has previously commented that they are good enough for the British Museum.  The fact is that the British Museum, on their own website, lead with the original helmet, not the reproduction. See  http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore.aspx?ref=header  86.171.109.66 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this argument is a much stronger one than Al Jolson as a rejoinder to Peter's "Yeah, can't trust the British Museum to get things like that right" snark. If the British Museum won't even lead the Sutton Hoo article with their own replica, then why would an article covering a 1000-year period for an entire continent and its periphery?  Personally, I'd like to see a collage of images like at War of 1812 (as an aesthetically pleasing example, I think). Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Basically, it doesn't comply with MOS as a lead image, because no reliable publication would use it in the context of representing the Middle Ages. Amandajm (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please put up a "fallback"image that is not contentious. Your "fallback" image ought not be one that promotes ridicule such as "You might as well use a still from a Robin Hood Movie" and informed criticism that tells you that within a museum context, this would be totally unacceptable. Amandajm (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it hilarious, that even when criticism of the lead image is brought up time and time again - in various different ways with legitimate criticisms ranging from authenticity, to national bias - that there is a small group of editors here who seem completely opposed to changing the picture for any reason. It has been suggested before that an alternative, more authentic image can be used to replace the lead image - since any image would be better than what we have at present (literally every single suggestion would be better, just to pre-empt the inevitable 'but nothing has been chosen to replace waa' response). Yet I still see the situation where the 'default' is wrongly set to the lead image that is so contentious in the first goddamn place.
 * Seriously, I looked into this talk page on the 23rd August, and exactly the same situation was ongoing with the ganging up on the previous person to dare to suggest that the image was questionable. What did I find? On Ealdgyth's talk page ...... she and other editors "complained about people continually bringing up this topic about the Middle Ages article". Hun, noone is commenting on the rest of the article, the rest is fine, but you should not shut down criticism of the lead image just because it is "tiresome". If there is a lot of criticism of something, by various different academics/members of the public, then that image needs to change.
 * I am most surprised by the hostility of the seeming cabal of editors that are zealously guarding this image. Every. Single. Goddamn. Criticism. By. Different. People. Is. Shut. Down. Without. Acknowledgement. This has been going on for how long now? I had a look on 23rd August. and at that point the discussion had been going on for a while between several people, now its still ongoing and its STILL being shut down? Absolutely ridiculous. It's a goddamn farce, and every single editor who is still completely opposed to changing a 20th century fake ethnically biased piece is looking a mixture of corrupt and petty to members of the general public, whom this article is directed towards.
 * Where on earth is the accountability here?! Can a neutral image of this article only occur through divine intervention at this stage? I will be eagerly following the rest of this tragedy as it plays out, I will scan the talk pages of the editors involved, and if I see any more gloating about 'lol those dumb people, why are they so adamantly against this image?' then this time I will save and post here for maximum exposure of the corrupt and petty nature of these editors, before they delete them as they did before. 86.173.5.29 (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I also want to add my support for changing to the real Vendel helmet image over the fake reconstruction. Honestly just skimming the thread this convo has been going on for long enough and I agree that its kinda silly that the default image still remains as the lead when the majority of commentators have expressed their opposition to it.  86.27.189.2 (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

'''So how many editors have strongly recommended that the lead image be changed? '''


 * 1) Pedro (talk)
 * 2) Brandmeistertalk
 * 3) AmateurEditor (talk)
 * 4) 94.31.32.30 (talk)
 * 5) 86.173.69.123 (talk)
 * 6) Curly Turkey (gobble)
 * 7) Srnec (talk)
 * 8) Amandajm (talk)
 * 9) 86.171.109.66 (talk)
 * 10) 99.239.72.120 (talk)
 * 11) 86.173.5.29 (talk)
 * 12) 86.27.189.2 (talk)

And note this interesting little interaction' from the history of the article: 

The image of the reproduction helmet was added to the lead on the 30 March 2012 by Ealdgyth


 * (cur | prev) 23:37, 11 July 2012‎ Brandmeister (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,265 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (original helmet) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 02:37, 12 July 2012‎ Ealdgyth (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,271 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (prefer the reproduction thank you) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 10:29, 12 July 2012‎ Brandmeister (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,265 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (original has much higher encyclopedic and historical value) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 11:03, 12 July 2012‎ Nortonius (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,271 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by Brandmeister (talk): I agree re encyclopedic and historical value of original, but for *this* article I think the high-quality repro is more ...) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 14:20, 12 July 2012‎ Johnbod (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (123,265 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Nortonius (talk) to last version by Brandmeister) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 18:40, 12 July 2012‎ Hchc2009 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,271 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (Returning to the earlier picture while the talk page discussion progresses) (undo | thank)

There was a similar interaction when I attempted to introduce three different images, so that people could see what the change would look like.


 * (cur | prev) 16:28, 15 September 2013‎ Amandajm (talk | contribs)‎ . . (160,257 bytes) (+166)‎ . . (If we must have a helmet, then lets have a genuine one, not the 20th century version. This picture looks into the page, per MOS, rather than outward.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 16:34, 15 September 2013‎ Bencherlite (talk | contribs)‎ . . (160,091 bytes) (-166)‎ . . (Undid revision 573035367 by Amandajm (talk), no consensus for this, discussion is still continuing and you are only one voice in that discussion) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 16:44, 15 September 2013‎ Amandajm (talk | contribs)‎ . . (160,316 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (So let's try Ealgyth's first choice and see how another genuine object looks, in place of the 20th century reproduction. Definitely looks nice and bright) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 16:46, 15 September 2013‎ Modernist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (160,091 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 573037040 by Amandajm (talk)prefer the former) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 17:51, 15 September 2013‎ Amandajm (talk | contribs)‎ . . (160,443 bytes) (+352)‎ . . (Platine Chapel. Looks good.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 18:00, 15 September 2013‎ Hchc2009 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (160,091 bytes) (-352)‎ . . (Reverting while the debate on the talk page continues - as yet, no consensus for change) (undo | thank)

Note that neither Nortonius nor Hchc2009 have been major contributors to the article, but have been adamant in the retention of that non-historic, 20th-century reproduction object. Likewise Peter Isotalo who has been vociferous in support of the replica has contributed only two small tweaks to the article. What is going on here? Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but, on the other hand, if you are going to support the status quo, in the face of objection, you need to produce good reason for doing so.

Where, then, are the major contributors to the article? Ealdgyth, (the major contributor) who chose the helmet in the first place, has shown some willingness to make another choice. Johnbod, a large contributor, showed an early preference for the genuine helmet (see above), and recently suggested a rotation of images.

Why are Ealdgyth and Johnbod, not here talking sense, coming to an agreement between yourselves in response to the criticism levelled by twelve different editors?

Anyone who wants to see how a different image would look in the context of the article can go to:
 * Vendel Helmet
 * Visigoth votive crowns
 * Palatine Chapel at Aachen
 * "Siege of the Castle of Love"
 * The Market Place
 * The Wilton Diptych
 * Irish reliquary 7th or 8th century
 * Anglo-Saxon reliquary cross


 * .......or a 20th-century reproduction object?

Amandajm (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Responses
Talk about tendentious cherry-picking – only recently I said "No other image has gained any more traction: if one were found which did, I might support it. Nortonius (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)" This confused, partial approach is tiresome and insulting. How many more times does it need to be said that if another image or indeed approach can be agreed on then it'll happen? Nortonius (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The suggested approach is to agree on any one genuine object as a replacement. You chose which you would prefer, and we will be a step further in the right direction. If everyone sits on the fence and says, I'll agree to agree with what everyone else wants.... we get nowhere! Make a choice of what is on offer, or go and choose something that might be better..... Yes, it takes hours of searching to find high quality images. Amandajm (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Plug for a particular image: "Siege of the Castle of Love", Amandajm (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you mean "You choose which you would prefer"? The point is, I'm quite happy with what we've got, the reproduction Sutton Hoo helmet, and I'm totally unmoved by any of the arguments against it. I am, however, quite happy that the image be changed if something more suitable were agreed on. Actually I think the image you plug immediately above is really lovely, and I think it rather odd that, in the edit summary of your self-reversion of adding that image to the article, you said it was "Too English": was that meant to be humorous irony? I believe it's French. If we had something similar but earlier… I might suggest the Franks Casket, but oh, it's English, never mind the fact that it immediately incorporates features common with other European cultures, and I don't want to go there again. Anyway I don't think any of the available images of it are of a high enough standard. Just don't confuse my having an opinion with sitting on the fence – I think you'd do well to stop throwing such accusations around, as I've suggested before. Nortonius (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's the Wilton Diptych that is "too English". .... Yes, it was irony. "Too English" was one of the arguments used against some object or another during the year-long argument over the replacement for the repro-helmet.
 * The helmet has to go, because there have been a dozen punters who have objected, mainly on the grounds that it is a bogus object, and their objection can hardly be ignored.
 * Does this mean that you are happy to tick the "Siege of the Castle of Love" box? Amandajm (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Most objections to the helmet have been on the grounds that it is not a castle from the Tres Riches Heures, or a suit of armour. I continue to have a strong preference for something pre-Gothic, largely because it will be an anti-cliche. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer Amandajm's question above, no, I am not happy to tick that box, how could you think that? Read what I've said again. This kind of scattergun approach is largely why I can barely be bothered to engage with this thread. I sympathise completely with Ealdgyth's comment below, and agree with her and Johnbod on this. Nortonius (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The objections that have brought down ridicule have been against the reproduction nature of that object. I have listed them above (leaving out the most objectionable)
 * One of the criteria given in the MOS for choosing a lead image is that it should be easily recognisable as representative of the subject. The ivory mirror case is just that.  Anyone who looks at the image sees all the things that are iconic of the Middle Ages (castle, knight and ladies, a distinctly Medieval style) so that the viewer can identify the period through the image, even if they have no idea what the object is, or what the image signifies.
 * I think that Tres Riches Heures is overused. As for the armour, there doesn't seem to be a single decent image of a whole suits of armour without camera distortion, and/or  museum clutter.
 * That mirror case was your suggestion, and I think it is an excellent one. Why don't you go with it as an interim measure, while you are searching for your wondrously rare pre-Gothic representational-yet-anti-cliched image?
 * This is a stop-gap, Johnbo!
 * Amandajm (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not replying because 1. I'm busy in real life and have already made my position rather clear 2. I don't see the need to keep belaboring my position 3. I don't find any of the images which were suggested to be better (in fact, I find all of the images put in on the 30th of Sept to be entirely too late in time period) and 4. Quite honestly, the sarcastic edit summaries and the constant long-winded posts and replies are extremely tiring to reply to and are quite honestly sapping my will to do anything with the subject at all or with Wikipedia. We get that you and some others aren't happy with the image - but it's not easy to do this sort of thing... and your way of going about things isn't helping. Let folks weigh in without swamping them with words. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I said nothing between the 17th and 30th September. During that period two other editors weighed in.  It is tiring, Ealdgyth. "Entirely too late in time period". "Too late" for what?  Your talking personal preference here, Your not talking about the suitability of the genuine against the reproduction.  There is only one object that is "too late", the 20th-century helmet!   That's obvious! Amandajm (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Random group of objects

 * I like the cross - if we had more information on it. Unfortunately, the image page gives us no details. Johnbod, you able to dig anything up? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which one? All are quite well known, the maybe-Italian one less so (& rather untypical). There is also the Cross of Lothair. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was admiring the Matilda Cross but the Lothair one is also nice. And both have pretty striking photos we can use. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the Matilda Cross photo bears up better to close scrutiny than does the Lothair; but both tick my boxes for their quality, the age of the subjects and their relevance. Nortonius (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I fully support the Cross of Lothair, its a perfect image for this article, fits the early time of the period - represents the common christian identity and mixed in with the imperial carolingian world. Beautiful. 86.27.189.2 (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Has nobody noticed that the central feature of the Cross of Lothair is a reused item dating from hundreds of years before this period? Are you simply being provoking, or are you serious?
 * While we know that precious gems and cameos were used and reused, isn't the focus on Ancient Rome just a wee bit too much, given that the thing is rather large and centrally placed? If anyone were to mistake it for a genuine jewel from the Middle Ages, well, then they would have been misled. So it would require a caption that stated, this is from the Middle Ages, all except that whacking great portrait cameo in the centre, which isn't.
 * And then the question would be asked, "Isn't there a single jewelled cross dating from the Middle Ages that doesn't have its major feature from a different historic period?" Can we just keep it to the Middle Ages? Surely the timespan is long enough to find something that suits!
 * The Matilda cross is fine. Excellent, in fact.
 * Amandajm (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually there are several re-used classical engraved gems on that too, though it's less obvious from the photo. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, the reuse of such gems was common. I don't see it as a problem on the Matilda Cross, because the dominant element is plainly Medieval. The non-Medieval elements have a definitely "recycled" appearance. I must say that I like the fact that the Matilda Cross combines a number of artistic skills; small sculpture, gem setting, filigree, enamel.  Amandajm (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added details to the Commons file (and corrected mis-identification in the German, to a later cross): "The second "Mathilda Cross" given by Mathilda, Abbess of Essen from 973 to her death in 1011, now in the Treasury of Essen Minster (with other items given by Mathilde). She is shown with the Virgin and Child in the enamel plaque at the base of the front. The cross was probably made in Cologne or Essen in the years before her death. Mathilda or Mathilde was a member of the Ottonian imperial family, the grand-daughter of Otto the Great and sister of Otto, Duke of Bavaria and Swabia (d 982). The corpus (body) is a replacement from later in the century. The cross re-uses classical engraved gems and cameos. Enamel roundels at the ends of the arms show Sol and Luna (personifications of the Sun and Moon). The back is a plain gold plate engraved with an Agnus Dei in the centre and the Envangelists' symbols at the ends of the members, all in roundels amid decoration of dots and foliage motifs. See: Lasko, Peter, Ars Sacra, 800-1200, Penguin History of Art (now Yale), p. 101 & 103, 1972 (nb, 1st edn.) ISBN14056036X". I could add more. Mathilda has a bio and the cross itself an article in German WP, but not here. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely worth an article. What is the tiny little standing figure to the left, would you say? Amandajm (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Mathilda here? Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Due north-east of the BVM is a little engraved gem with a standing figure.
 * I really liked the idea of having several pictures rotate, so a different image comes up when you refresh the page, but the only way to do it, as far as I can discover, is extremely complicated, and I can't get my head around it. Amandajm (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, using random subpage isn't really complicated at all - the subpages would have to be created in the Talk: namespace as you can't have subpages in mainspace, but apart from that it would be straightforward if the consensus view thought that using a number of images in rotation was the way forward here. Most half-decent portals use the template, for instance. As was noted earlier, this hasn't been done in an article before (as far as anyone knows) but that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be; some thought would have to be given to whether, and if so how, the changing image selection was explained to readers. BencherliteTalk 06:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bencherlite, thank you. It could be tried out on someone's talk page..... thant would be fun.
 * AmateurEditor, thank you for all your beautiful suggestions. The last manuscript is exquisite. I want to hear the Marys singing the music......  Amandajm (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

the middle ages started after antiquity in the 8th century — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.166.31.138 (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

About reference style
Hi, User:Ealdgyth, sorry for not asking before the edit; so the format of references is so strict, that even grouping congenerous sources is not allowed? I'm just curious if there's any such way, 'cuz I remember from high school that MLA allows certain abbreviation from the same source (in the reference page). Please, thanks. --- SzMithrandir (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not that it's strict, it's that because you cannot control the size of the output device, you should not use things like indentation or ibid or similar - they won't necessarily show up correctly. This is a featured article - it's gone through a pretty rigourous review process and its just a good idea for anything that changes style or otherwise on it to be asked about first. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I see, yeah that's a good point, mobile devices .. thanks. SzMithrandir (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Dubby-dups
Intellectual life and Technology and military are both illustrated by pictures of scholars, in very similar positions. The picture with the spectacles is the more famous. It can go into the Intellectual life section and retain the mention of the glasses (technology).

I suggest that an image of technology is found that is not represented by a manuscript picture, but by an object.
 * DYK... that when Cologne Cathedral ran out of funds and the workers downed their tools, an enormous wooden crane was left on top of the unfinished tower, and dominated the skyline of Cologne for the next 400 years?
 * (No, I'm not proposing an image of the crane) Amandajm (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Too many complications!
''In the Eastern Empire the slow infiltration of the Balkans by the Slavs added a further complication. It began small, but by the late 540s Slavic tribes were in Thrace and Illyrium, and had defeated an imperial army near Adrianople in 551. In the 560s the Avars began to expand from their base on the north bank of the Danube; by the end of the 6th century they were the dominant power in Central Europe and routinely able to force the eastern emperors to pay tribute. They remained a strong power until 796.[59] An additional complication was the involvement of Emperor Maurice (r. 582–602) in Persian politics when he intervened in a succession dispute.''
 * Can someone please fix this poor expression?
 * Amandajm (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Amandajm, I'm a bit busy with dealing with the above section. Is there some reason you're suddenly afraid to edit the article and instead insist that someone else do your editing for you? It's certainly never been a problem before for you to edit the article ... so why should we jump to edit something for you instead of you just fixing it yourself? Personally, I don't see how this is a "poor expression" as it ties the last sentence into the first. Repetition isn't something that is always always bad... sometimes it's good because it ties things together. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And in other instances, on Wikipedia, the use of expressions like "another complication" are labelled "Weasel words" and a banner to that effect is jammed at the head of the paragraph. "Another complication" to what, exactly? You are not being hassled by a banner to get it fixed immediately. So there is no need to take such an impatient tone. We all have lives here. We are all a little bit busy. Maybe another contributor would like to give it some thought.  Amandajm (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It now reads " the Eastern Empire the slow infiltration of the Balkans by the Slavs added a further difficulty. It began small, but by the late 540s Slavic tribes were in Thrace and Illyrium, and had defeated an imperial army near Adrianople in 551. In the 560s the Avars began to expand from their base on the north bank of the Danube; by the end of the 6th century they were the dominant power in Central Europe and routinely able to force the eastern emperors to pay tribute. They remained a strong power until 796.[59] An additional problem was the involvement of Emperor Maurice (r. 582–602) in Persian politics when he intervened in a succession dispute." I still fail to see how "complication" is a weasel word, but hopefully this resolves your issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Explanation: You are writing about a series of historic events.
 * If you write "added a further difficulty" (or "complication") and "and additional problem"  (or "complication")  then the question arises "a further difficulty to what previous difficulty?" (or "complication" as the case may be) . Who has this difficulty? Who is it a "complication" for?  Why is it a "problem" that Maurice was involved in Persian politics?  Who was this a problem for?   If it "complicated" something, then what was it that was made more "complicated".  You have removed the doubling of the word, but haven't solved the problem.
 * State: "From (date) there was a slow infiltration of Slavs into the Eastern Empire through the Balkans" or some other such pertinent statement that leaves out "further difficulty/complication".  You can then indicate the difficulty by another clear statement: "This caused displacement of the Byzantine people" or "this brought about aggression between the different races"  or some equally meaningful statement that tells your reader more than "further difficulty/complication".
 * In both instances the "further difficulty" and "additional problem" should be omitted unless you state very clearly what the problem was, and who had the problem with these events. Amandajm (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the previous paragraph "Justinian's reconquests have been criticised by historians for overextending his realm and setting the stage for the Muslim conquests, but many of the difficulties faced by Justinian's successors were due not just to over-taxation to pay for his wars but to the essentially civilian nature of the empire, which made raising troops difficult." That would be the first difficulty. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. I get that. But you are writing a history of events, not an assessment of Justinian and a rebuttal of his critics. It's an an encyclopedia, not a paper. Amandajm (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as this is an encyclopedia, one is required to write clearly. Your sarcastic edit summaries and your obvious resentment at being asked to improve something do you no credit. Amandajm (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria
An anonymous editor changed the date for the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria from 1366 to 1396 and Ealdgyth reverted, I assume because the edit contradicted the source, Davies, Europe. However, 1366 looks wrong to me.

Judith Herrin's Byzantium pp. 310-311 says that Serbia, Bulgaria and Macedonia fell after the Battle of Marica in 1371. Some Serbs and Bosnians continued to resist, and met the Ottomans at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. Historians disagree about who won the battle, but it increased Turkish control over the Balkans.

According to the Bulgaria article in the 1973 Britannica, in 1371 Bulgaria's last tsar, Ivan Shishman, was forced to declare himself an Ottoman vassal. They captured and burned his capital in 1393. His brother established himself at Vidin, and the last remnant of Bulgarian independence disappeared when it fell to the Ottomans in 1396. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article says "The Ottomans expanded into Europe, reducing Bulgaria to a vassal state by 1366..." not that they conquered it totally. The process did take a while, but it's also not something we need to go into great detail either - dates given are illustrative of the point along the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans. If the article stated that Bulgaria was conquered by the Ottomans in 1366, it'd be wrong, but it's correct to the source (and I'd trust Davies' more recent work over a 1973 Britannica... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bulgaria fell under Ottoman rule in 1396, when the Ottomans conquered Vidin Tsardom--Sumatro (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)