Talk:Late Middle Ages

message: : It doesn't follow criterion about Lead and References. Lincher 19:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: This is probably a stupid question, but could articles dealing with broad Western chronologies like this one incorporate some kind of overarching timeline template to contextualize epochs like "late middle," "early modern," "renaissance," "classical," relative to each other?  I realize these terms aren't precise or rigorous, but they could still be depicted on a chart that would really help out users like me. :-)   
I'd be happy to make and post this template if someone could wiki me up with the relevant periods, terminology, and dates.  Cyrusc 21:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline for users ignorant of history

message: Basically, the article shows good attempts at research, but the research is poorly directed, because not enough time was spent with first reading up on the subject, in order to have a good idea of what was important to the era. I'd suggest, before continuing, to simply sit down and read three or four books on the subject, without thinking about the article. This will help give you an idea of the shape of the era, letting the important parts be identified.
Overviews are the hardest type of article to write. Because not enough time was spent in planning, this article is disorganised, jumping around between time periods without good reason. A chronological approach would assist in fixing this.  This article gives short space to defining events like the Hundred Years War, the growth of artillery (still mainly archery throughout this time period - gunpowder had begun to be use, but wouldn't come into its own until a bit later). The development of armour, and so on. Huge space is given to Martin Luther, who is not in this period, whereas Gutenberg gets one sentence.  Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, needless to say I disagree with your assessment, or I wouldn't have nominated the article. More to the point, I'm not sure if you have quite understood how the reviewing process works. Articles should only be quick-failed if they don't fulfil certain criteria, such as a complete lack of sources, which is clearly not the case with this one. As the rules have not been followed here, I feel the need for a second opinion. In cases like this, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment recommends simply relisting the article, rather than putting it through a reassessment, so that is what I'll do. Lampman Talk to me! 14:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Believe me, I'm not happy to have to go through with another waiting period, but the WP:GAR page says: "If the article was quick-failed, and you disagree with the reasoning, leave a comment on the article talk page and renominate the article. It is rarely helpful to bring quick-fails to Good article reassessment, since they have not had a full review." I just thought I'd be a good boy and follow this recommendation. Lampman Talk to me! 14:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think it was inappropriate for the reviewer to say the writer needed read three or four books more books on the subject. The article cites over twenty! How are three or four more going to help? However, why does this article mention Luther at all, when he did his stuff after 1500? You do acknowledge that it is outside the era, but if it is, why bother with it? With summary articles like this, you just can't afford to waste space. Wrad (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I struggled a bit with that one. I could of course have operated with a watertight 1500 cutoff-line. But in the end I decided that an article about the end of the Middle Ages ought to discuss the end of one of that era's main characteristics - namely the unity of the western church. I am still open to discussion on this though. Lampman Talk to me! 16:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of the stricter version. You can still cover reform while keeping within the period. You can confine your discussion of Luther to just saying that Wycliff and Tyndale influenced him in later years rather than giving him his own section. Wrad (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what I might do is remove the sub-headings, and divide the "Religion" section simply into a "Great Schism"-part and a "Reform movements"-part. This, I believe, would improve the esthetics, and at the same time I might tone down the emphasis on Luther. Thanks for your input! Lampman Talk to me! 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible to fix up the lead of this article? It mentions all the crises of the era, however they are not elaborated again in the article. Although there is a separate article on them they are important if you want this article to provide an overall summary of the era. The article on the crises, Crisis of the Late Middle Ages, isn't very good - perhaps you could merge that article as an additional section in this one (either the whole thing or just a summary). However, I do feel that just a mention of these crises doesn't give them their due weight. Thanks. --Cazo3788 (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Failed

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Louis role.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: It seems this article is trying to describe non-European regions yet still remains Eurocentric. While it's good to avoid focusing on Western civilization in our history articles, I feel as though this particular article's subject (the Late Middle Ages) is really more a European subject. To put it bluntly, the Middle Ages and its sub-division are time periods in Europe and describing other regions beyond their relationship to Europe seems kind of irrelevant. It's noticeable that the Middle Ages, Early Middle Ages, and High Middle Ages articles do not expand beyond the Middle Eastern developments and at least one doesn't even really go that far. I suggest we merge the non-European information with their respective regions' history or a more global time period equivalent (i.e. the Postclassical Era). Any opinions? InvaderCito (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Following the standard view, the Middle Ages are defined as the period between antiquity and the (early) modern age in Europe. I thus removed the non-European regions to bring the article in line with those you listed. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late Middle Ages: European or Global Time Period? 

message: For anyone watching this article, the Timeline section is broken. As I'm not familiar with how timeline syntax works I'll leave a comment here. (but if I don't get a response in a couple of days I might take a crack at it!) Aza24 (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline