In a message dated 4/23/2009 1:34:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com writes:
Sorry, you hold what qualification in medieval history to make this comment? What do you think the so-called "feudal system" was about if not the holding of land, which made up most of the economy of Europe from say 600 to at least 1600? >> --------------------
Not the point. This article is not about the feudal system, not about an example of a person with a hundred plots of land. It's about one person, their life. Not their land holdings.
By the way. I didn't "target a constructive editor". I did not look, and don't make it a habit to look at *who* edited an article. It's a waste of time. The article is the thing, not the people behind it.
This article is poor. Whether it's a good example of the feudal system or not (and it's not) isn't relevant to whether it's a good example of a stubby biography (which it's not).
Will
**************Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799634x1201361008/aol?redir=http... eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133440%3B36002254%3Bj)
2009/4/23 WJhonson@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/23/2009 1:34:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com writes:
Sorry, you hold what qualification in medieval history to make this comment? What do you think the so-called "feudal system" was about if not the holding of land, which made up most of the economy of Europe from say 600 to at least 1600? >>
Not the point. This article is not about the feudal system, not about an example of a person with a hundred plots of land. It's about one person, their life. Not their land holdings.
By the way. I didn't "target a constructive editor". I did not look, and don't make it a habit to look at *who* edited an article. It's a waste of time. The article is the thing, not the people behind it.
This article is poor. Whether it's a good example of the feudal system or not (and it's not) isn't relevant to whether it's a good example of a stubby biography (which it's not).
Will
As Charles said, the landholding information is important and relevant for this person in the context of when they lived. At the moment though it does rather overwhelm the rest of the article, because of the extent and the formatting. As a compromise, how about putting it inside a hidey box, set to hide by default? {{hidden}} The citations could be cut down by moving the full Domesday book reference into ==References== similar to the other books, and in-line citing just page numbers.
In fact, I think I'll go try that now.
Pete / the wub
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Not the point. This article is not about the feudal system, not about an example of a person with a hundred plots of land. It's about one person, their life. Not their land holdings.
By the way. I didn't "target a constructive editor". I did not look, and don't make it a habit to look at *who* edited an article. It's a waste of time. The article is the thing, not the people behind it.
This article is poor. Whether it's a good example of the feudal system or not (and it's not) isn't relevant to whether it's a good example of a stubby biography (which it's not).
Will
First off all, this is not the place to bring this issue to light. Articles have edit-buttons and talk-pages for a reason. If you feel the article is poorly done, we have plenty of avenues for you to try and do something about it. This mailing-list cannot function if every problem someone has with any article is brought up here. Here is where we discuss general issues concerning wikipedia, not small problems with individual articles.
Second, I'm very vary of arguments that go "this information shouldn't be in wikipedia", especially in cases like this where there is no doubt of the factual basis, no problem with sources, the notability of the article in question is firmly established and the information is completely uncontroversial. Why shouldn't it be in the article? Wikipedia is not paper, if we can have an article on every Simpsons episode, why not include this information?
It's not an unthinkable scenario to imagine a person wanting to know the land-holdings of this particular earl, and going to wikipedia to find out. Why shouldn't we provide that information?
It seems to me you are essentially making a stylistic argument, like "the article looks strange with this list at the bottom". But I don't quite see it. The biography is there, the family and intro is there, and the list doesn't make it any harder to read. If it really did clutter up the article, I suppose you could make a separate "List of landholdings by William de Warenne" and link it, but I think the information works just fine where it is.
--Oskar
2009/4/23 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com:
First off all, this is not the place to bring this issue to light. Articles have edit-buttons and talk-pages for a reason. If you feel the article is poorly done, we have plenty of avenues for you to try and do something about it. This mailing-list cannot function if every problem someone has with any article is brought up here. Here is where we discuss general issues concerning wikipedia, not small problems with individual articles.
Oh, I think the discussion's so far been relevant to the wider issues Will considers this article an example of.
- d.
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/23/2009 1:34:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com writes:
Sorry, you hold what qualification in medieval history to make this comment? What do you think the so-called "feudal system" was about if not the holding of land, which made up most of the economy of Europe from say 600 to at least 1600? >>
Not the point. This article is not about the feudal system, not about an example of a person with a hundred plots of land. It's about one person, their life. Not their land holdings.
By the way. I didn't "target a constructive editor". I did not look, and don't make it a habit to look at *who* edited an article. It's a waste of time. The article is the thing, not the people behind it.
This article is poor. Whether it's a good example of the feudal system or not (and it's not) isn't relevant to whether it's a good example of a stubby biography (which it's not).
You cut the comment where you claimed the land holdings were insignificant: "his Domesday holdings which are completely insignificant historically,
They weren't.
How is writing "This article is painful ... I can't believe someone did this" not targetting a good-faith editor adding verifiable, factual and relevant information to Wikipedia?
You go back in my killfile.
Charles
2009/4/23 WJhonson@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/23/2009 1:34:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com writes:
Sorry, you hold what qualification in medieval history to make this comment? What do you think the so-called "feudal system" was about if not the holding of land, which made up most of the economy of Europe from say 600 to at least 1600? >>
Not the point. This article is not about the feudal system, not about an example of a person with a hundred plots of land. It's about one person, their life. Not their land holdings.
As an article about a Norman noble who is significant because of his role in a feudal system, it is important to list landholdings in the article. Without the landholdings, he wouldn't be a Norman noble (or would be a less notable one), which is what the feudal system was all about. Similarly, if a businessman were famous today for being a businessman, it would make sense to list the companies he has been a CEO of.
As David said above, it is a short article, so his landholdings take a up a large portion of it. Just add more biographical information.