Talk:Growth of the Old Swiss Confederacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Growth of the Old Swiss Confederacy is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 5, 2004.
WikiProject Switzerland (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries / Holy Roman Empire  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Holy Roman Empire task force.
 

References[edit]

A note on the literature references: Schwabe & Co is a truly massive and comprehensive work in three volumes; the one-volume edition of 2004, whose ISBN is given, has 1005 pages. Different historians cover different periods. Highly recommended. Im Hof is much more concise (about 150 pages) and written by a single author; it is a useful source for a first overview, although the prose is sometimes a bit awkward and it is a bit dated, despite having been revised several times since the first edition in 1974. Lupo 21:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The events in the Valais and the Grisons are a brief overview only. Both History of the Valais and History of the Grisons are on my to-do-list... Lupo 21:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Very sexy. great use of the timeline. Better references, please... where did all of this come from? +sj+ 23:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where did it come from: from the two references discussed above (Schwabe & Co and Im Hof), from de:Geschichte_der_Schweiz and other related articles on de:, such as de:Wilhelm Tell, and from my general knowledge of the topic. Better references: the Schwabe & Co is the major work on the history of Switzerland. I have added the two good English online references I have found. What else did you have in mind? (Note that finding good references is hard—many sites treat the legends of William Tell and the Rütlischwur as facts.) I do not know about English books on the medieval history of Switzerland, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. But I can't add such references, because I don't know these books and thus cannot judge whether they are any good. Lupo 07:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have now added one English book. It does seem to be kind of a standard work, but is from 1986 and thus a bit dated. I do not know that book and can therefore not comment on its usefulness/accuray/unpartialness. Lupo 11:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Burgundy Wars: The saying[edit]

An English translation of the saying "Karl der Kühne verlor bei Grandson das Gut, bei Murten den Mut, bei Nancy das Blut"? is (preserving the alliteration (Gut - Mut - Blut, as well as Grandson - Gut, Murten - Mut)): "Charles the Bold lost his goods at Grandson, his manliness at Murten, his blood at Nancy".

I suppose we have to decide between "acceptable English" and "preservation of structure". Old English would be easier (god, mod, blod). Gut is "goods". I think staying true to the german source is more important then creating a rhyme with Blut and Nancy that was never there. Taking the old meanings into account, the above translation does justice to both requirements. PatLeCat

I don't think the alliteration is that central (blood and Nancy doesn't alliterate), and after all, if we give the original, the translation is only supposed to convey the meaning, while the rhyme may be admired in the original (hey, and it's just a folk-saying, not world literature or anything) dab 17:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

btw, the "Karl der Kühne verlor" bit is not considered part of the saying. (note the quotes at e.g. [1] [2]) I am editing to the effect that "Charles the Bold lost" was (smugly) understood. dab 18:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
well, this got reverted (what happened to the first part?) within three hours by a passer-by not bothering to check Talk, so it may be better to leave the 'complete' version in place... :-\
The "original" saying is of course alemannic anyway, and should read:
"bi Grandson s'Guet, bi Murte de Muet, bi Nancy s'Bluet" (hät de Karl de Küeni verloore")

heck, somehow I think if we give the original we might as well give the original original. Let me try inserting that alemannic version (but revert me if you think it's silly, I won't object)

dab 18:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite, move or de-FA[edit]

The current title of this article (Old Swiss Confederacy) suggest it is about a former state, but the structure is essentialy history (or rather two specific sections on territorial (which seems to include political among others) and social developments (economy, summary of politics)). At best, the title is confusing, suggesting it is a comprehensive overview of a former country (for good FA examples of this, see Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Indo-Greek Kingdom, with country-like formatting). Alternative is to rename this series to History of Switzerland (date-date) or (name), as is our naming convention (FAs: History of Poland (1945–1989), History of post-Soviet Russia, History of the Netherlands, History of Russia, History of Scotland) and section headings are adjusted to reflect chronology, and non-history parts can be moved to former country article (consider also an example of History of Poland (1945–1989) vs. People's Republic of Poland, or History of Poland (1569-1795) vs. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). One way or another, this needs to decide what it is and adapt, as currently it is a confusing hybrid of history and former state article types. If no changes are made, I am afraid it should be deFAced, as it is substandard comapred to our newer FAs (mentioned above).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As my critique have not beed addressed, I have to nominate it for FARC. Hopefully the resulting attention will succeed in improving this article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. it is about a historical federation which you may or may not classify as a single 'state'. The article is perfectly suited to the unique nature of its subject, regardless of your a-priori considerations of how "articles about former states" should or should not be organized. I do think you make a valid observation and that the OSC may indeed be a "confusing hybrid of a historical process and a political entity", through no fault of this article. dab () 15:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Article moved[edit]

Well, I have moved the article now all the same. The argument is not entirely without merit, but I don't think it was a reason to go for FARC. This article is in and by itself good enough for FA status. There's now a completely new article on the Old Swiss Confederacy. Lupo 21:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

hrm, I find that split passing strange; the situation is now certainly more confusing than before. I can live with it, though, after all no information was lost. () qɐp 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not, in fact, information should've been added, unless I goofed somewhere along the line. Lupo 21:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I did the move because this article only deals with events up to the early 16th century; later events are handled at Reformation in Switzerland or Ancien Régime of Switzerland. But the Old Swiss Confederacy existed until 1798 at least, or even 1848, if one considers the restoration a re-instantiation and the Napoleonic era from 1798 - 1815 only an interruption. It increasingly annoyed me to link to this article from 17th-century contexts, such as e.g. Swiss peasant war of 1653.
There is currently quite some overlap, but I expect this to diminish in the future. Old Swiss Confederacy should concentrate more on the structure of the federation (for instance, the tables of treaties from HDS could be added, if I can figure out a way to present the information using a different layout (copyright!)). It should (and will) also mention the "Defensionale of Wil" (1647), and might point out in more detail how diverse the interests of the cantons were (Berne oriented towards the west, not interested in the Rhine valley (Sargans etc.), conquest of the Ticino driven by the central cantons, ...) Lupo 12:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I see -- this makes perfect sense, and the set of article is, of course, in excellent hands as long as you look after them. dab () 18:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured article?[edit]

Why on earth is this still one? It's B grade at best. It only has 4 footnotes and 2 foreign language references. I see there were even concerns way back in 2006 when standards were no doubt alot more lax. ʄ!¿talk? 06:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

idiotic. this is easily FA quality. De-featuring it just goes to show the pathetic state of our "quality control" which is about counting footnotes and quibbling about layout while totally ignoring content. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, your breach of WP:civility has been reported at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Admin civility issue.
As for your assertion that this article is FA quality; it's not. Several of the FA criteria aren't met, the prose isn't "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", and the citations are not consistent or even basically adequate.
The problem with basing article status on content alone(as was done most inappropriately here) is that content is entirely subjective. A few nice pictures and a timeline(which looks pretty awful in firefox I have to say) does not a FA make. ʄ!¿talk? 10:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about the timeline display issue -- I was just popping into the talk page to mention that, well, it's entirely unreadable to me, using Firefox. Text overprinting two or three times per row. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Fixed timeline issue...hopefullyTobyc75 (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)