Talk:Scotland in the Late Middle Ages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Article discontinued
No further work on this subject will be done by me. Rcpaterson 01:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Others will continue your work. That is what Wikipedia is all about. Best wishes to you. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Why not have a go yourself? I could really do with a good laugh Rcpaterson
- Hey. If you are actually going, then I've been planning to do this for a long time. It wouldn't be in this form though, but in the form of Scotland in the High Middle Ages, with sections devoted to various aspects of Scottish society and history in the period. Big problem though is that my knowledge of the 15th century ain't is good as my knowledge of the 14th century. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, good; I know our approach is different: mine, broadly speaking, political and chronological, yours cultural and thematic, as I once hinted at on the talk page of the above. I intend to nominate the present page for deletion, and thus bequeth to you a tabula rasa, so to speak! The fifteenth century is among the more troubling-and fascinating-periods of Scottish history; the work by Macdougall, Brown and Macgladdery (the last on James II), and Boardman would probably be a great help to you. I will be around for a day or two to clear up some loose ends and will try to deal with any specific questions you have. Rcpaterson 05:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tag
I've removed the Template:Inappropriate tone tag as it's worse than useless: it advertises at the head of the article the editor's vague personal opinion that the style isn't right, and links to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles which only mentions tone once, in the context of the option (NOT requirement) of using News style, which itself gives little or no guidance about "tone". There's a case for listing articles for cleanup to draw in help, and this can usefully be done with tags on the talk pages of articles, but this tag on the article itself is at best an irritation and insult to editors who have put considerable effort into improving the article. If you see faults in the article, the best things to do are to edit it, or draw attention on the talk page to exactly what problem you find. ...dave souza, talk 11:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've come to think that tags are often a replacement for actual editing. An editors sees a problem, so quickly tags it so he doesn't have to worry about it again. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Added other categories
Added other categories, feel free to amend, update or add to as you see fit. Benson85 22:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
