Talk:Battle of Strasbourg

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was Move.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Support : I wrote this article, and also Late Roman army, and all the sources I used refer to the Battle of Strasbourg EraNavigator (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: In the illustration of the re-enactor the helmet being worn is not a spangenhelm, as stated, it is a 'ridge-helmet.'  The two types are quite rigorously differentiated in academic works on the subject - see Dixon or Bishop and Coulston. Urselius (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helmet 

message: I just thought I would explain my correction of the term spangenhelm as applied to the Sutton Hoo helmet.
All spangenhelms have composite skulls made from a number of elements (spangen - in German), which are riveted together.
The Sutton Hoo helmet actually had a single piece skull, quite unusual for the time. It had an applied, front to back, ridge which made it look like a typical 'ridge helmet' but the ridge didn't, in fact, join a two piece skull, it seems to be a largely decorative feature (it has silver inlay).
The outside of the helmet was covered with thin plaques of tinned bronze, embossed with decoration, with edging strips of untinned bronze. This decorative scheme gives the initial impression that the skull is of composite construction but it isn't, the iron undeneath was one solid piece.Urselius (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sutton Hoo helmet 

message: It is too large and, most importantly, contains information that should be put on a separate article. That is, very loosely related images and, in general, an  excessive amount of information on Roman armour. I would like to hear your thoughts before embedding a cleanup tag there. Dipa1965 (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is where should this information be provided. I suggest, you propose a specific concept for that. Then we can talk about it. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed the title of the section and will make a massive removal with reference to main articles throughout wikipedia in a day or two if no-one objects. SADADS (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it is a little too long, but it will suffice for now. SADADS (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on problems of "The adversaries compared" section

message: I have made changes subject to the concepts stated on Wikipedia:Splitting and am trying to refocus the article to just the battle and not all of the extra stuff associated with it which may be cool, but should not take up the majority of the page. If it appears have have removed something crucially important to the article, or unstated in the main articles please fell free to add that at the appropriate place. SADADS (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Before we start an edit war, present a sandbox version of the new article and mention briefly which sections you transfer and how you link to them from the new article that first appears in the sandbox. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the Article up

message: I'm aware that composite bows are superior to longbows, but only for flight archery and from horseback, see for example Traditional Bowyer's Bible 4. I have removed what could be taken as hyperbole (common in tertiary sources) on the wonderfulness of the composite bow. I've also used more cautious phrasing elsewhere; it seems a bit much to describe longbows as very powerful when we don't actually know if there were any at the battle, let alone what their performance might have been. I also took out the bit about Central Asian origins of the Roman bows; Coulston's "Roman Archery" describes them as the products of the Levantine tradition, and discussion of the origins of Levantine bowmaking is really beyond this article. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Archery

message: As dis cussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Battle_of_Strasbourg , changes in the article subsequent to its ACR have meant that it no longer meets current A-class standards in terms of citation.  In particular, areas of the text provide discussion and opinions which are not cited to reliable sources.  There is also concern that the article is over reliant on primary sources and does not take sufficient account of modern scholarship.  This will cause the article to automatically be reclassified as C-class.  Monstrelet (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to MILHIST assessment