Talk:Historical inheritance systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Dthomsen8, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on 13 September 2013. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!
 

Untitled[edit]

  • Removed {{copy edit|for=Unusable long article |date=August 2013}} and awaiting AfD decision.

Comment[edit]

Seeing the enormous number of people mr. IP is adding, it can be worth to start checking the sources. To be true, I don't believe this anymore! The Banner talk 22:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To the Banner[edit]

Hi, Banner! I am so happy that you keep up with my edits to this article! However, you are such a critical reviewer, hehehe. My main source is Murdock's "Ethnographic Atlas". I only had partial and partly mistaken versions of this precious book until recently, but now I have the original, almost complete work. I was starting to add many more peoples to the list, beginning with those who employ patrilineal primogeniture and ending with those who employ completely egalitarian inheritance, but your comment has made me reconsider this decision of mine. Perhaps it is excessive to add so many peoples to the lists in this article. Thank you again for your attention :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talkcontribs) 13:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Two things: 1. the article is excessively long and should be split; 2. You add an excessive amount of links to disambiguation pages. And because of the page length, it is rather slow work to fix them. I have already solved I don't know how many and now there are again 44 links to disambiguation pages. Please, please, check your links. The Banner talk 20:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I was hoping that you finally started paying attention to my requests, but the only thing I see is an increase in links to disambiguation pages. Please tell me when you prefer to bluntly ignore my request, because then I know that I can start reverting just as bluntly. The editors working to solve links to disambiguation pages are not paid editors hired to clean up other peoples mess.... The Banner talk 21:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I ask you for a little patience. Writing in Wikipedia is not my only occupation, I have other things to do as well. I have split the article into different sections as you asked me, and I have also added more peoples to the lists as you wanted. I have to solve the links to disambiguation pages yet, and I assure you I will dedicate all my efforts to it this weekend. Is that ok with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talkcontribs) 06:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

My patience is eroding away again. Please, take care of the links you add, as too many of them are links to disambiguation pages. And please, split the article. Not in sections but in separate articles. This "thing" is too long to read, too long too load and too long to maintain. The Banner talk 21:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Christ almighty[edit]

Dozens upon dozens of examples of inheritance systems, very untidily ordered, sourced with hundreds upon hundreds of what seem to be reasonable citations. I've never seen anything like this before. I half want to applaud whoever's responsible for this, but at the same time this really does need to be written as an encyclopaedic article - and at least rearranged heavily. And the cross-referencing - 12 or more individual sources for single words of an article? It's just staggering! (But, of course, ridiculous.) Microphonicstalk 23:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with above editors comments. Since the citations are reasonable, and main issue is links and length, I'm willing to take this page on as project. The rearranging I would do after unlinking(8-12 lines a day) so review might be christmas.--Andrea edits (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
After having 8 rows of place names that I'd removed links from, I see they have been re- added. On users page I extended offer of help, but no reply there/ here/ my page, so rather that get into a 'link war', I advised I rescinded my offer of help. --Andrea edits (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of edit[edit]

I am making an attempt at fixing some of the problems on this page. I have started with the first subsection (Land inheritance). After trying and failing to make the excessively long list of linked peoples/tribes more readable, I decided to just removed most of them. It is unnecessary to go into that much detail and it really was just unreadable, especially with the massive run on sentences. I will attempt to work through the rest of the article in a similar fashion. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

About editing the article[edit]

I will modify the article myself. I wrote all the article, so I think at least have the right to modify it if some people don't like it. Please stop making edits, I will make them myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talkcontribs)

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines especially WP:OWN. Please be aware that you do not own the article. You are engaging in unnecessary edit wars by reverting edits. You even reverted a typo fix. Other editors are just trying to help you. I strongly suggest you be open to suggestions on improving the article and not be hostile. NQ (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge?[edit]

Is there any coherent distinction by which the topic of this article is delimited from that of Systems of inheritance among various peoples? As far as I can see, the one is merely a more wordy version of the other. Of course, merging would produce yet more problems of sheer size, but then, there does seem to be consensus that this material needs to be pared down a lot anyway, right? Fut.Perf. 11:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, they should be merged. I can't see any obvious distiction that would warrant two seperate articels; some of the content appears to be duplicated between them as well. However both pages would need to reduced in size and better organized first. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Article organisation[edit]

Currently the article is all over the place in terms of organisation and I suspect there is some duplication, with systems of individual counties being discussed in multiple places. The current section headings are too essay like and will not accurately describe the section contents when I have finished cleaning out the irrelevant content. I was thinking of reorganise the article by location, so each section would describe the inheritance systems of a particular country or region. If anyone objects or has a better idea, let me know. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Historical inheritance systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)