Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

NOTE: It is recommended that new discussions about the Middle Ages be at one of the Project Discussion Forums and not on the talk page which is for project administration discussions.


Contents

Shared resources suggestion[edit]

There is a shared resources Wikipedia page, but it is not much used, probably because it is time consuming for editors to add their reference works to it. I've begun a listing of my own reference works that I think are of interest to other Wikipedians. The page is here; there is a section on Anglo-Saxon history, currently incomplete, that may be of interest to others here.

I'd like to suggest two things:

  1. Anyone who is willing to use the sources at their disposal to assist other editors may wish to create a similar page.
  2. We could then create a section on the main project page of links to editor's library pages, where those pages contain some medieval history references.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done that too, User:Adam Bishop/library (although it's mostly stuff that is useful to me, not useful in general). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Geoffroi de Charny (French Knight), Geoffroi de Charney and Jacques de Molay (Knights Templars)[edit]

Have made substantial improvements and additions. Would like the article re-evaluated please with any suggestions welcome. Also done work on Geoffroi de Charney and Jacques de Molay (Knights Templars) - same request. Mugginsx (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Beatrice of Rethel[edit]

The article on King Roger II of Sicily's Queen consort Beatrice of Rethel needs expanding. The article as it currently stands is sparse of text and appears incomplete. Hopefully, an editor with sourced information will be able to work on it to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Charter fairs[edit]

I have created a new article Charter fair because so many other articles refer to charter fairs. It is a stub so far and needs substantial expansion. Because so many fairs got their charters in the middle ages, I hope editors in WP:MA may be able to help. Thanks, Andy F (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple of paragraphs and some basic references, but it will need some more work. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The article has certainly developed – many thanks Andy F (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The ethnicity of John Hunyadi[edit]

I've opened a thread about John Hunyadi's ethnicity on Fringe theory noticeboard: [1]. John Hunyadi is one of the most important military leaders of the Middle Ages, so maybe some editors will be interested (Umumu (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

Sibylla of Jerusalem[edit]

The article on Sibylla of Jerusalem needs an infobox, as I've already suggested on the said article's talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added one. Probably worth checking I've got the details right, as I'm not a Sibylla specialist! Hchc2009 (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks great! Thank you, Hchc2009!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

FAR[edit]

I have nominated Islam for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 03:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

New WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms[edit]

Currently Wikiproject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms is under proposal at the Wikiproject Proposal centre. We will be focusing on developing articles related to Post-Roman Pre-French England (c. 410-1066) and all of its social, political and cultural implications. If you interested please sign up to support at Wikiproject Anglo Saxon Kingdoms. Project Home Page coming soon. Also, cool task forces for you favorite kingdoms including Mercia, which will be our very first task force. Thank you very much, and hope you will come out to support. Sadads (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms has now been set up. Metabaronic (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Groan! Another set of talk page banners, of course always placed at the top, whatever the relevance, and never nested. None of the notable editors on the subject involved. Let's hope it doesn't rapidly fade away, leaving just its banners, as most of these efforts do. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well how about recommending said "notable editors" to us for a start? Instead we have newish dedicated editors - treat us right and we may yet be notable. And the best way to keep it alive is to join and participate. As for banners - they're mostly added by bot, and if you look you'll see they a) are being nested, and that b) they are not always at the top. Certainly I tier them according to assessed importance. Even if you don't join, surely constructive input at the project talk page will be more helpful than groaning and moaning about us :).Metabaronic (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
All the ones I have seen are at the top, often most inappropriately, & not nested, & sometimes accompanied by inaccurate tags which I have removed. Thanks to the category system you have tagged a number of articles, like Book of Dimma and Bobbio Orosius, which have certainly nothing to do with the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Tidying up all this will be more than enough involvement for me. You have I think approached User:Mike Christie, User:Ealdgyth, & no doubt others, & been declined. You might try the new face User:Jayser100. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Banner issues can be raised under Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms/Banner.Metabaronic (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Most of the talk banners are nested, I manually added them once I realized that they were not nesting properly in the AWB setup I had. I did ask for my talk page to be notified if their were serious problems with the tagging. Sadads (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Szigetvár nominated for GA[edit]

Battle of Szigetvár, an article within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, has just been nominated for GA. Any kind of help or comments would be appreciated. Kebeta (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Roman imperial church[edit]

Comments invited at the talk page of this new article, which seems to me to have an ill-defined scope and focus, and overlaps at a lower level of quality numerous other articles (mentioned there) which it doesn't even link to. First para of lead: "The Roman imperial church, the official Christian church of the Roman Empire, was formally established during the 4th century CE though it was descended from the earlier Christian fellowships that had existed since the foundation of the Christian religion.[1] The Church was officially sanctioned by and closely linked with the Roman state.[2] The emperor came to be seen as the Church's defender and leader along with the bishops.[3] The Church existed, at least in theory, as a unified entity until the Great Schism of the 11th century. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have both claimed to be the legal and spiritual continuation of this Church. Additionally many other Christian sects, including the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church, claim to be descendants of this Church alongside Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy." Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It has now changed its name, & I have put it up for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State church of the Roman Empire. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What was really the Roman Empire[edit]

Though I know this is an oft debated issue ...

There is some ongoing and fairly unpleasant debate going on at Talk:State church of the Roman Empire (formerly Roman Imperial Church). A great deal of the debate centers around what was really the Roman Empire at any given point in history and what is the right way for Wikipedia articles to talk about Roman entities and non-Roman entities. I have asserted on that talk page that those sorts of discussions are really beyond the scope of the article (these questions affect far more than that article). I have insisted that those discussions be redirected to relevant Wikproject pages including this one. If there are any essays or previous discussions that are particularly relevant please feel free to share.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


Sutton Hoo GA review[edit]

Sutton Hoo has been nominated to be listed as a Good Article. A review has started and is now on hold while the reviewer does more background reading on the topic. In the meantime a few points have been listed for improvement or discussion here. This project is tagged on the talkpage as one that has an interest in the article, and any extra assistance is always appreciated during a GA review. SilkTork *YES! 10:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Science in the Middle Ages[edit]

Hello. You are invited to take part in the discussion on Science in the Middle Ages. The question is should we keep or remove the section on the Islamic world. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Economy of England in the Middle Ages...[edit]

I've had a go at drafting an initial article on the Economy of England in the Middle Ages - it will no doubt benefit from the contributions of others! Many thanks, Hchc2009 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Middle Ages articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Middle Ages articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A-class review for Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria is open[edit]

A WPMILHIST A-class nomination of Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria is open. Any interested editors are invited to participate. Any input is welcome! Constantine 11:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ormulum's FAR[edit]

I have nominated Ormulum for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

MILHIST task force restructuring[edit]

Greetings from the Military History WikiProject! In recent months, we have been working on transfering our project task forces into a standardized style, in order to make them more readable and user friendly, especially for new editors. We have also been redirecting the talk pages of those task forces to our main project talk page. The latter is partially because many of the posts on the task force pages are duplicates of those on the main talk page. It is also partially because the main talk page has many more watchers than the individual task force pages, and so discussions will have more input and queries will be less likely to become "lost" or otherwise go unanswered. You can see a sample of the new style and the talk page redirection at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force or many of our other task forces. We would like to do the same to the Crusades task force. However, as this is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/Crusades task force, which is part of this project's space, we would like to make sure there is no objection to us changing the style or redirecting the talk page. We would also be willing to move the task force into our project's space, with a redirect from your project's space, if that is preferable. Dana boomer (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC), on behalf of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject.

I don't object really, but there is much more to the crusades than just the military aspect, and that's why I didn't start the Task Force in the Military History project...actually I probably should have made it its own WikiProject, and I suppose it could still be done now. On the other hand, the crusades Task Force is being used much more by Military History than the Middle Ages project, and if it can be fully integrated and better-used in MH, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments needed on Aelred/Ailred[edit]

Please weigh in over at Talk:Ailred_of_Rievaulx#Requested_move. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Al-Kindi[edit]

An editor has asked for a community reassessment of this article to see if it still meets the good article criteria. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Kindi/1. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sack of Amorium FAC[edit]

I have nominated the Sack of Amorium article as a Featured Article candidate. Any interested user is invited to state his/her opinion and offer criticism! Constantine 19:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Last consul[edit]

The article Constans II states he was the last consul, but the consul box at the end of the article states that also Justinian II became consul. Who was the last consul? Constans II or Justinian II?--Casmiki (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

List of medieval universities[edit]

Yesterday, I found the list of medieval universities. I think this list make sense, because the list of oldest universities in continuous operation only lists universities that not only existed in the middle ages, but have a track record of continuity until today. But the list is very strange:

  • actually there are two lists, one per date another per country, this is easy to sort out, we need to move that to a sortable table,
  • the criteria of inclusion is university crated until 1600 whereas the latest end date for Middle ages that I know of is 1516,
  • there are no sources, but apparently the first institution listed is the oldest according to the Guinness book, is that compliant with our source policy?

Any advice? Feel free to carry out any necessary actions. --Anneyh (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD pending on Wulfrida, Queen of Wessex?[edit]

The Wulfrida article states she was Queen of Wessex, as wife of Æthelred of Wessex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wulfrida states "No verifiable evidence that Wulfrida existed." I assume users from this project may wish to comment one way or another on this deletion. OCNative (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Page move report[edit]

Open page move requests relevant to Medieval history. Your opinion solicited:

Sources needed for Beak doctor costume article[edit]

A vigorous discussion is currently under way at Talk:Beak doctor costume about the historical use of the phrase 'beak doctor', and whether said costume was worn before the seventeenth century. I've not been able to find any reliable sources which show that the costume was worn before 1619, and therefore thought I'd ask here if anyone knew of any. Any other contributions, either to the discussion or the article, would be welcome.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look, and I couldn't find any high quality sources in my collections. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Svein, King of Norway[edit]

There is a dicussion of this man's status as King and his article title at Talk:Svein, King of Norway. If interested please join in the discussion.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomas the Slav FAC[edit]

Thomas the Slav is currently undergoing review as a Featured Article candidate. Any interested user is invited to state his/her opinion and offer criticism! Constantine 12:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Components of medieval armour[edit]

So, I have been informed that I should ask for permission to add your banner to this article. Should I add {{WikiProject Middle Ages}} to it? 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Roman Empire dissolution, 476[edit]

I have created an article that I called Final dissolution of the Western Roman Empire. Is this article necessary? and, if so, are there any improvements to it that I can make? DCI2026 (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Input requested regarding article title[edit]

I just closed a move discussion at Talk:Tzachas#Requested move, and then an editor objected to the move. Before doing anything further with the page, I'd like to see input from some more editors, so we can be certain that we're getting the correct title. If anyone here can register an opinion there, it would be helpful. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit...[edit]

Interesting article ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Could WP:MA do more?[edit]

Just an observation: at FAC and elsewhere, I'm often seeing articles that need reviewing concerning (or overlapping) the Middle Ages. (At FAC at the moment: Jovan Vladimir, Exchequer of Pleas, St Nicholas, Blakeney, Geoffrey (archbishop of York). Recently: a ton of articles, some of which failed FAC for lack of reviewers.) So I came here to pull up the list of participants ... and it's a very long list, with many active and knowledgeable WPians. But I don't see any regular notification of articles that need reviewing. So I'm wondering: could this project become more effective and more active? I can help at FAC and WP:PRH (which is just the regular peer review, for history-related articles). - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

European Middle Ages or universal middle ages?[edit]

Members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages might be interested in Talk:Middle Ages#Is this article about the European Middle Ages or some universal history period?. There is an attempt to change the focus of the article so that it encompasses the same time period but the entire world. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Portal:History[edit]

Is up for FPOC. This is one of the highest (if not the highest) visibility portal on Wikipedia, I recommend commenting on it! Cheers, ResMar 23:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article review for Scotland in the High Middle Ages[edit]

I have nominated Scotland in the High Middle Ages for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Consolation of Philosophy GAR[edit]

Hi, as a related WikiProject, you might be interested to know that the article Consolation of Philosophy is now up for a Good Article Review. Best, It Is Me Here t / c 11:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month[edit]

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Middle Ages will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in within Middle ages history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourceless alert: Eraric[edit]

In my experience bogus data sometimes emerge and perpetuate on Wikipedia. My shallow googling for the spurious ostrogothic king Eraric indicates no source except the infinite number of wikipedia copies. Did he exist, or did a false meme slink into wikipedia? If you know anything please answer at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Sourceless_alert:_Eraric Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Article naming struggle[edit]

Over at Talk:Romance (heroic literature), we are really struggling to come up with a name for that article. Please chime in and help out. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge comment needed, Gregorian modes[edit]

Please comment on an old merge discussion restarted at Talk:Gregorian mode#Gregorian, authentic, plagal: propose merger 2. This discussion has been restarted because the original discussion 3 years ago went off-topic and no consensus could be made from it. Please stay on-topic this time. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Another merge comment needed[edit]

Please glance at Talk:Ugo de' Pagani, comparing with Hugues de Payens. Thanks -- :) Andrew Dalby 13:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Murasaki Shikibu[edit]

I don't think the current lead image of the article is appropriate because the costume and the hair style are incorrect. Comments are needed at Talk:Murasaki Shikibu#Wrong picture. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 FAC[edit]

The Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 article is undergoing its 2nd FA candidacy. Any interested user is invited to state his/her opinion and offer criticism! Constantine 11:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Rumi from a neutral point of view[edit]

Hello, I have a recommendation about the article Rumi.
Please read all the information, I wrote on Talk, and tell whether you agree or disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rumi#Let.27s_Remove_POV_with_a_Neutral_Point_of_View
You know the ethnicity of Rumi is unknown and debated. I hope you contribute to this matter. Alternatively, from a neutral point of view, I recommend to change the (POV) sentence to a (NPOV) sentence:
"a 13th-century Persian Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic."
to "a 13th-century Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic of Persian literature. 81.213.117.125 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

13th century deaths attributed to the Black Death perhaps result of a volcano eruption[edit]

See the section I added at Theories of the Black Death. Other articles may need to be edited in light of this new study. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

But that was a century before the Black Death. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the confusion is over the Spitalfields burials. See [2] as well as the Guardian article.[3] which says "When archaeologists discovered thousands of medieval skeletons in a mass burial pit in east London in the 1990s, they assumed they were 14th-century victims of the Black Death or the Great Famine of 1315-17." Let's see what the report says. But anything that links these graves to the Black Death or plague needs attention, and this volcano eruption claim may end up needing its own article. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Civilizations Textbook[edit]

Hello all! I’m working with the Saylor foundation to create a series of original, crowd-sourced textbooks that will be openly licensed and freely available on the web and within Saylor’s free, self-paced courses at Saylor.org. We are using Wikibooks as a platform to host this project and hope to garner the interest of existing members of the Wikibooks and Wikipedia community, as well as bring in new members! We thought that some of your members may be interested in contributing to our book Saylor.org's Ancient Civilizations of the World. (talk)--Thomas Simpson (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

FAR notice[edit]

I have nominated Gregorian chant for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine–Seljuq Wars GAR[edit]

The article on the Byzantine–Seljuq Wars is currently undergoing a Good Article Reassessment because it does not fulfil the criteria for a Good Article. Any interested project members are invited to participate with a view to improving the article and keeping its Good Article status. Constantine 08:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Constantinople (717–718) FAC[edit]

The article on the Siege of Constantinople (717–718) is currently undergoing review as a Featured Article. All interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion. Constantine 09:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We need outside opinions[edit]

RfC: Did the the Crown of Castile end in 1812 or in 1715? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Chola dynasty[edit]

Chola dynasty is nominated for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Task force for The Canterbury Tales; or Heere bigynneth a pilgrimage?[edit]

It may be of interest to users in this project; a proposal for a Canterbury Tales task force to be made under WikiProject Poetry: take a look.

Chaucer template[edit]

As a part of the efforts of The Canterbury Tales task force I've created a preliminary expansion and redesign of the {{Chaucer}} navbox at Template:Chaucer/sandbox. Comments are welcome. Phil wink (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


Invasion of England (1326)[edit]

Concerning the outcome of the war (and subsequent engagements) as either an English rebel victory or a French victory. It seems no one is sure despite the sources mentioned in the article of mercenaries involved. Anyone care to help. ChrisWet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Theodoric to Theoderic[edit]

As per my note on the talk page of Theoderic the Great I've started the process of correcting the spelling of Theodoric to Theoderic. This was an error carried over from the 19th century, whereas most reputable modern sources use Theoderic, the internet is filled with older materials that still use Theodoric. Because of this, "Theodoric" is so prevalent in Wikipedia, I thought it best to stop the correcting process and seek counsel here regarding the issue. Any thoughts? Feedback on the Theoderic talk page appreciated. -- spin|control 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

John Dee, King Arthur, and the Conquest of the Arctic[edit]

Thomas Green has written a new article on this subject which looks like an excellent source.[4]. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Norman conquest of southern Italy[edit]

Hi all, I started a discussion on the Norman conquest of southern Italy article in regards to the introductory paragraph. If anyone wants to provide input they are more than welcome. Cheers, — - dain- talk    23:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

East and West Francia[edit]

The articles East Francia and West Francia, long without sources, have been turned into redirects to Kingdom of Germany and Kingdom of France, respectively. Middle Francia still exists. These articles could be resurrected someday, hopefully with citations. Srnec (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Human–goat sexual intercourse - deletion discussion ongoing[edit]

Deletion discussion ongoing about whether or not this article page should exist.

Please see deletion discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human–goat sexual intercourse, if you wish to voice your opinion. — Cirt (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Replace "Middle Ages" with "Post-Classical?"[edit]

There's mention of removing "Middle Ages" and replacing it with Postclassical Era. Please chime in. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Limited to Europe[edit]

Why is this project solely limited to Europe? Why not include other continents? Asarelah (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As the name implies, this era has been defined by being in the middle between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. That periodization is based on the narratives of mostly isolated European evolution. While there were events on other continents during the same timespan, the periodization moniker doesn't fit as well (though has been used). For instance, the Crusades against the Muslim invaders fits in the Middle Ages. That narrative places Islamic peoples as a character in a story about Europeans. The age of Islamic Caliphates wasn't in the middle of anything, it was a Golden Age (from the Islamic point of view). Meanwhile events in East Asia, Africa, and the Americas continued but those events were not meaningfully identifiable to the timespan of the "Middle Ages." Japan experienced a feudal-like shogunate government from AD 1192 all the way to the Meiji Restoration in 1868. It wouldn't be accurate to call this part of the Middle Ages. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
See various discussions above, and longer ones at Talk:Middle Ages. While the term "medieval" is often applied to other areas in sources, covering a similar time period give or take a century or two, the term "Middle Ages" is far more rarely used for them. Which may not be logical, but there it is. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I get where you're all coming from, but this policy sounds like a recipe for historical erasure on Wikipedia. I am concerned that in not making them a part of the project for this time period, we will be neglecting the histories of people of color. It may well be eurocentric to subject these time periods to European classification, but I think it will be far more eurocentric to leave them out entirely from the project. The ancient history wikiproject doesn't take this policy, and ancient history is usually defined as anything before the medieval era, so its just as much a European definition as medieval is. Are there counterpart projects for other parts of the world during this time period to make up for it? Nothing in the discussions in the archives touched on these points. Asarelah (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing preventing folks from creating a Postclassical Period Wikiproject. We can't do OR here folks, historians generally confine use of "Middle Ages" to European topics. Yes, there are topics such as "Medieval China" or "Medieval Japan" but those subjects cover different time periods. It's just a weirdness of periodization - it's easy to define "ancient history" and easy to define "modern history" but ... where the dividing lines on what is "medieval" varies according to the region. I did a majority of the work on the Middle Ages article and all the books I consulted confined it to the Middle Ages. I bought/checked out/read a LOT of books trying to find the best sources for the article ... and none of the scholarly books (or even the high end histories designed for non-historians) covered non-European/non-Middle East topics in their books on the Middle Ages. Until the historians change their periodization (and I doubt they will, instead, I predict we'll see more "post classical" histories covering the whole world) we'd be wrong to impose some non-RS supported view. (From my time in college - most "world history" classes divide into two periods - before the modern and modern. The Age of Discovery is the usual dividing point.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Another point - are we thinking that if some topic isn't covered by this (mostly moribund) project that it's erased from coverage? Doesn't Wikiproject History cover all historical subjects? As long as we're not deleting articles, I dont' see how whether or not some wikiproject banner is on a talk page equates to a "recipe for historical erasure on Wikipedia". Wikiproject banners on a talk page do NOT equate to actual support and work - how much support has this project actually given out in a long time? It's mostly down to a few folks that work on their own topics... it's never been a big project for doing improvement drives or such like that. (For that matter, I wonder how many of it's participants know that the flagship article made featured article status recently... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There's no erasure or threat of erasure. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles on varied historical subjects from Ibn Battuta to Daimyo. These articles need not be part of an exclusive WikiProject in order to collect educational content. Besides, there are already other WikiProjects that address some of these subjects, not to mention WikiProject History as a catch-all wikiproject. Because Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we have to draw upon the English-language scholarship of historians. The wiki will include new styles of periodization as they are created academically. Wikipedia's coverage becomes less Eurocentric as academia becomes less Eurocentric. I hope this settles your concerns about bias. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I've said elsewhere (where was that recent discussion?) that we currently lack a historiographical article on Medieval periods in world history, which would be useful. But merely having a project is not much of a help or stimulus these days, and the different periods called "medieval" around Eurasia and Africa had such different cultures and histories that this is likely to be especially the case here. Johnbod (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing my concerns. A Post-Classical Era category and project, along with links in the medieval category pages directing them to their Asian and African counterparts, would be an excellent idea. That way, people will be able to find information about "medieval Asia, etc" without being stymied by the lack of articles in the Medieval category. Great suggestion! Asarelah (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Horrible Histories[edit]

Hi. We're having a discussion on the fate of Horrible Histories TV show at: Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)#Moving on. As a relevant Wikiproject, we would greatly appreciate it if you would voice your opinion on the talk page, or to have a crack at editing and improving it. Thankyou for your time. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire name[edit]

There is a move discussion on the Sassanid Empire talk page. Any interested editors are invited to comment and/or vote. --Constantine 08:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on WikiProject France talk page[edit]

Please come participate in the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France#Painting used in William of Gellone. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1526)[edit]

A proposal for size splitting of the above article has been made. All comments are welcome. Borsoka Borsoka (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian tribes vs. Magyar tribes[edit]

There is an intense debate over a moving request. All comments are welcome. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


Domain or Kingdom of Soissons[edit]

There is a move discussion on the Domain of Soissons talk page. Any input that any willing editors could give there would be greatly appreciated. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

FAR Rus' Khaganate[edit]

I have initiated an FA review for the article, the review page is open for discussions on how to improve the article to bring it back to it's FA status, or for it to be reclassified. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

Any knowlegeable contributions to the discussion at Talk:Chichevache#Merger proposal would be welcome. Deor (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Bosnia FAC[edit]

Last month I nominated the article about Elizabeth of Bosnia for FA status, but it has not attracted enough reviewers yet. Elizabeth governed or directly influenced much of central Europe in the 1380s, but ended up losing her head. The article (rated GA) is of interest to WikiProject Middle Ages, and I would be very grateful if a member of this WikiProject commented on the nomination. Surtsicna (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

There's an RfC about inclusion of UK constituent countries in the Europe Topic template. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Stephen I of Hungary/archive1[edit]

I initiated a peer review of Stephen I of Hungary, a GA, before its FAN. I would appreciate comments on this article about the first King of Hungary who is also a popular saint in Central Europe. Borsoka (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Have left some comments... Hchc2009 (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Black death was not spread by rat fleas, say researchers[edit]

Interesting research. This can affect several pages. Have they published any of their findings however? We should wait until they do that, and then cite their papers directly. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There have been a number of suggestions like this in recent years, but it remains controversial. And no, we should not normally use primary sources, but wait for secondary ones. The "Causes" section of Black Death has long covered the arguments as to what it was and how it spread, and I see someone has already added this story, probably prematurely. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. What The Guardian is talking about is a theory, not a proven fact. While it's exciting to add it's also ill-advised. Let's wait 30 years and see how this shakes out. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Byzantines CfDs[edit]

There are two CfDs right now relevant to Byzantine history:

I support both, the idea is to replace the use of modern or religious place names with the contemporary name "Byzantine Empire" or a part of which. Of course it is being opposed by religious or nationalistic indignants. Please tell your opinion. trespassers william (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Medieval censorship[edit]

This essay is up for deletion at WP:AfD. Please help! Bearian (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Middle Ages at Wikimania 2014[edit]

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 07/07[edit]

Draft:Sir Richard Threston. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)