Talk:Medieval Corsica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Middle Ages Portal Medieval Corsica is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

	Medieval Corsica is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Medieval Corsica is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). Add comments
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

[edit] Off-topic tag

Mr. srnec - I see you have done quite a bit of editing on Wikipedia so I am going to take you seriously. You reverted my rewriting of the intro. The "editorializing" I can understand. I got NO idea by what you mean by "self-referential." Does that mean you think I made it up? No, no, you can't mean that as I gave 3 or 4 Wikipedia article links to explicate the concept. In any case I present you with a problem. This article is not about medieval Corsica! The Germanic migrations are not generally considered medieval and the Renassaince is in here too. The scope of the article covers far too much time to be medieval. My solution was to point that out in encyclopedic terms. The alternative is perhaps breaking the article up unless you can think of something else. You are welcome to rewrite it yourself or take any other action to solve the problem. The ball is in your court. I would like to see accurate Corsica articles so I put the tag on there to stimulate discussion and debate. Maybe we really do need to think about breaking up the article into Corsica in late antiquity, Corsica in the Renaissance, etc. I'll be checking back later to see what your thoughts are or what your solution is. You can always send me a message.Dave (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Late update. Hmm. I read the Middle Ages article carefully and it does define the term Middle Ages as possibly covering the time from classical to modern. Well. After due consideration I think I should take the tag off that I put on. I want to suggest however that the article under its current name is going to get too long and already is pretty long so we might want to retreat from the most general possible definition of middle ages. OK. Since the terms have been defined in a linked article there is no need for me to get excited about srnac's reversions and this discussion covers the issues. I would like to suggest srnac that the picture needs more weight than what you have given it for design aesthetics. Also it is customary to put the name of the article in BF in the first sentence. That would require rewriting the 1st sentence. I am not going to do these things as the other Corsica articles need my time more. But those are my suggestions. Ciao.Dave (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer some of your questions. By "self-referential" I meant that the lead referred to the article which it led. I think that that is bad form. As regards boldening the term "medieval Corsica" in the lead, I think in this case it is unnecessary. This article covers a topic which could be titled several ways, without partiality to any one: "Corisca in the Middle Ages", "Medieval history of Corsica", and the current title. The term "medieval Corsica" was chosen solely for conciseness. The article could be split, but should only be split when it gets too large. Expand it first, then split if off into subarticles. That's the best approach, on my view. Thanks, by the way, for reading up on the issue and dissolving it before I even noticed. Srnec (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)