Talk:Second War of Scottish Independence

message: A merge request was put on this shortly after I started work.  There is already a seperate entry on the First War of Scottish Independence, and I believe the much neglected Second War needs similar treatment.  It receives partial and cursory treatment in the Wars of Scottish Independence page.  I could expand this but that would risk making the whole thing excessive in length. Rcpaterson 22:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article is valid and there is no need to merge it. It needs to be exanded, which it seems Rcpaterson intends to do. Tyrenius 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As the merge tag has been removed via a revert by Netsnipe who put it there in the first place, do I take it that there is a consensus not to merge? At least an informative edit summary would have been helpful. Tyrenius 04:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. What's the official policy on merge tags? Are they to always remain on a work-in-progress article or do I accept the author's promises on good-faith? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  08:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You could merge an article unilaterally if you wanted. However, if other editors are involved it is best to discuss (hence the tag). Through discussion the next step is reached (merge or not merge so remove tag). At the moment it is the case that involved editors have seen fit that this is best as a separate article. If nothing happens to it after a while and all the info is in the main article, you may think it best to merge it after all. No point keeping the merge tag on at the moment, unless you are suggesting it should be merged at the moment. Tyrenius 00:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wiki doesn't have isolated intros. It only has stubs! I think from above conversation you should go ahead and complete the article. Tyrenius 00:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The merge tag was put on when this article was just a paragraph. I propose removing the tag, now that this topic has turned into a full article in its own right. Tyrenius 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do note that this merge tag is about adding information from the Wars of Scottish Independence page into this article? --Fxer 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't. I thought it was the original merge tag reinstated. Tyrenius 12:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm all for bold edits, but I don't know about just scrapping the articles wholesale. I would think these articles should be organized like the rest of wikipedia, we have a First War article, a Second War article and then use the Wars of Scottish Independence article as an overview, with general info about the struggles, as well as paragraph long excerpts and links to the First and Second war articles. I'd agree with Rcpaterson on the points that the articles on the topic definately need some reorganizing and rewriting. --Fxer 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good plan. Tyrenius 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Request 

message: Can someone please explain why the sections of the article have vague and slightly ridiculous titles such as "Autumn King" and "Awakened Dreams"? I'm sure someone has gone to a lot of effort to think them up, and they must have some relevance to the article, but they don't half make it difficult to tell which section is about which phase of the war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.13.170 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the strange titles? 

message: Does anyone see the reason, why the tag was placed? 
In the history, You may note that the anonymous IP placed it: , but with no description, with no discussion, without any relevant action to clarify his/her disapproval. So hereby here I call for its disposal. If this section will remain unanswered for more then let say a month, I see it fit for anyone to remove the tag. Reo ON  |  +++ 16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the circumstances, I removed it. It's over a year old and the lack of a discussion since then seems to indicate that the time for all due haste has passed. A POV tagger should at least give some indication of the issues. If anyone has anything to say on the topic, please do so here. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thats good, right. But regardless the circumstances I am glad, that there was at least us two who reached agreement before the removal. I completely agree regarding the indication of POV issue, however I see it common , that it is often missing, such empty POVs are then weeding lot of articles. In such cases I try to set some quasi-discussion for one month and than, if empty (and that is always) I remove the tag. Maybe overcaring? Have a good time Reo ON  |  +++ 05:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag? 

message: This article uses text from For the Lion: a History of the Scottish Wars of Independence to which Wikipedia is not legally entitled, lacking proper licensing by the publisher. The article was created with this content with more text added incrementally to this point. Examples of some of the problematic text include: ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Given the number of edits to this article since, I had hoped to be able to clean it as I went, but at this point it is apparent to me that most of this content remains unchanged and there is considerably more ground still to cover, some of which I already know is copied: . I'm very sorry to say that, at this point, it seems that to avoid creating an unauthorized derivative work, this article will need to be completely rewritten. It is being blanked to give interested and knowledgeable contributors an opportunity to help out in the hopes that one of you will. It will be revisited after about a week to see what further steps may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem