Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages/Archive 2

Military history
If anyone is interested, the Military history WikiProject has created a Middle Ages task force to deal with issues of military history during the period. Any volunteers would be highly appreciated! —Kirill Lok s hin 04:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Was there three months prior to l;earn of this workforce's existance. Reverse movement. Dryzen 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement - Trial by ordeal
We don't seem to have an organized Article Improvement Drive, so hopefully people see this - I would like to suggest a common drive to improve Trial by ordeal. It is currently hopelessly useless. The most logical place to start, of course, would be Bartlett's "Trial by Fire and Water". Adam Bishop 07:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
I've requested a peer review for Trobairitz, medieval women composers. I'd appreciate any feedback you guys could give. Mak emi 07:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal?
I'm surprised that I can't find a Middle Ages portal! I don't know too much about the Middle Ages, but I really enjoy learning about them. Do you think you could set up a portal for us amateurs? --Hyphen5 05:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

POV
Wikipedia is certainly not about a group of self appointed 'experts' grouping together like some Masonic club. I know some of these individuals are making contact by email to develop their very own stealth strategy concerning the editing of Wiki pages, this page should be deleted and the 'club' disbanded immediately. Bel air 00:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the POV template editor Bel air placed on the project page. The brand new editor's comments above do not presented any understandable issues which can be rationally discussed and corrected.  If Bel air's intent is deletion of this project page, he/she should make a proposal to delete the page where it can be voted upon, per Wiki procedures.  A list of POV issues could also be created.  WBardwin 00:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See what I'm talking about! Immediatly reverted!! Bel air 00:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not a member of any cabal, I do not e-mail any project members, and I only occasionally comment on this page or on any Middle Ages articles. I joined because of my educational background, and have made a few edits where they were appropriate.  So -- conspiracy theories do not fly with me.  This page is on my watch list, and I monitor it for vandalism and inappropriate additions.  You, from your user/talk pages, are a brand new editor.  Your instant POV tag and ranting comments above do not indicate to me that you are interested in working on this project or working with any editors.  So what issues are you upset about?  Please list them here. WBardwin 00:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith here. Bel air, you are of course welcome to join the project and help us make the Middle Ages-related articles better. Perhaps you have misunderstood the nature of the project. Adam Bishop 01:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I "bit" too hard -- certainly Bel air's edits are welcome. But the use of a POV tag on a project page?  I think issues should be first discussed before accusations are made and a tag placed.  Best wishes to all.  WBardwin 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I should have been allowed at least a couple of days to make my case, but with the POV tag removed and with no revert by any of the 'members', I'll now have to reconsider my stay with Wikipedia.org, thank you. Bel air 10:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you have things the wrong way round. You should only tag articles disputed if you've tried, and failed, to have your concerns resolved. Given that WikiProjects can and do exist, it is difficult to understand your complaint. A project, so we're told, is a group of people who believe they can contribute to the aims of the project. That might well be a "masonic club" of "self-appointed experts". A project exists to coordinate efforts and collaborate on its subject, perhaps using IRC or email to communicate. I suppose that "making contact by email to develop their very own stealth strategy" does indeed cover this aspect of a project. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply, if you cannot withstand a simple POV tag for a couple of days, then it quite leaves me very puzzled. The complaint was barley initiated, and I do get the feeling Angus McLellan of a talking down and not one of us syndrome. My understanding was that a POV tag was indicative of an ongoing dispute. I cannot see the logic in having the dispute and then adding the POV tag afterwards. Bel air 11:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Just to add to this edit.Angus McLellan  I was looking over some of your past work. I see you and another 'member Calgacus' changed the subject Dal Riada to the name Dal Riata without consultation with the various interested parties. This is the sort of issue generally that I am referring to, but there are other issues too. Bel air 12:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You're special Bel air. Putting a "The neutrality of this article is disputed" tag on a project page is quite something. You know, Bel air, sometimes votes actually happen and no conspiracy is involved. No conspiracy, no CIA involvement, no aliens, no Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. If you wanna see a real cabal, check out Polish Wikipedian's Notice Board. It has a nice section at the top called "Articles needing attention", which is essentially User:Molobo listing articles he needs help with on his revert wars. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have really ruffled some feathers here, and sympathy to all the good Wikipedians out there who intrinsically believe in fair play. I may have said enough, and really I have said nothing much yet, merely to establish the POV tag status.  Bel air 13:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I don't know about anyone else, but you've convinced me. I'm stunned that more people aren't falling over themselves to stick a POV tag on the Project page. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you so hostile? Calgacus! - Does it tell me something? Bel air 13:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not in the slightest bit hostile. Just amused that you think a quite Project like this could produce a cabal. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, are you referring to Calgacus' conspiracy to make the medieval Scotland articles unreadable? You may have something there :) Whatever the case, please, just get to your point and stop trolling. Adam Bishop 15:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * All pretty hostile so far! To be honest I expected more, but such is the human condition. I have learnt so much from my encounter on this page and I have yet said very little, with the POV tag is still in revert.  Don't bother to respond as I won't be back here. Wish you all the best with your Wikipedian endeavors.  Have a nice day! Bel air 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Bel air! We need more people like you at Wikipedia, you'll shake'em!! Raspitin 17:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's face the facts. Some Wikis are pigs, the guy was probably too polite to say it. There are some in here too. Now I only said some! Wiki


 * So, can anybody figure out what the hell he was complaining about?--Cúchullain t/ c 01:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From looking at Bel air's small number of edits, I think it had something to do with the use of the phrase "British Isles" -- or he was just trolling. Or did you mean the anonymous "some Wikis are pigs" above? I guess that is just a drive-by insult. -- llywrch 05:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When I left a conciliatory message on his/her talk page, the response indicated that "Bel air" was a new user name for a previous user. So the concerns may have arisen during older edits.  Bel air's talk page has now been "cleaned" -- but the history is available, of course.  WBardwin 11:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Minstrel
I figure this is as good a place as any to ask: Minstrel could use expert attention. See my remarks at Talk:Minstrel. - Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed Sockpuppetry
It has been discovered on WP:RFCU that, , , ,  , ,  and  are all socks. has been engaging in sockpuppetry to further the wikipedian strength of his POV on this and other pages. Moreover, is a suspected sock, but may be just, if Bluegold was telling the truth on the investigation page, Bluegold's work colleague trying to help him out. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Llywelyn the Great peer review
I have put Llywelyn the Great on peer review. Any suggestions for improvement would be appreciated. Rhion 18:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Vulgar Latin
Vulgar Latin is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 20:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc
Joan of Arc is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 23:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Prince-elector
Prince-elector is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Girdle book - request for stub creation
Anybody care to create a stub for Girdle book (medieval book carrier that hangs from the belt)? Saw a couple of web pages about this - seems like an interesting concept. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 17:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Medieval cuisine
I've started a new article on cuisine of the Middle Ages. Comments and additions are highly appreciated.

Peter Isotalo 13:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of Æ in article names
Medievalists may wish to join the discussion of the use of Æ (æsc) in article names at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) --SteveMcCluskey 07:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Attila the Hun
Attila the Hun is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Edward III of England
I've completely renovated Edward III of England, and put it up for Featured Article. Please weigh in on the candidate page. Eixo 23:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of the Garter
Order of the Garter is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 20:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hereditary peer
Hereditary peer is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 14:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  03:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

Medieval cuisine up for peer review
I'm working on getting the article up to FA-standards and your input would be much appreciated. Don't be shy now. Any and all comments (or criticisms) are beneficial.

Peter Isotalo 10:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Saladin
Surely Saladin deserves a FA.

A lot of citation work needed on this; but it's not a bad starting point. --Dweller 12:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Saladin is on my "things to do" list, but I haven't had time to work on it yet. That's going to take a lot of work though...we can't even convince people he was a Kurd, and making it a featured article is just going to attract more crazies. Adam Bishop 14:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sheriff
I wanted to link to Sheriff for Sir John Donne. Neither S nor High Sheriff cover the historical aspects of the roles at all, and are highly therefore misleading as references. Could someone give these a look? Thanks Johnbod 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)