Talk:Anglo-Saxon dress

message: Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, James Planché - died 1880. I don't think he is an RS these days - nothing else from the 19th century on any aspect of Anglo-Saxon history would be.  Please reference the work being cited.  Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I tracked it down to , but the page numbers are still one off, so the person who added these refs may have been using a modern reprint with slightly different pagination. The blogspot source and the Regia Anglorum handbook are also a bit dubius, and likely themselves go back to Gale Crocker. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is "Planché"? 

message: I often standardize spelling in articles, removing occasional anomalies.
I don't believe I have ever seen an article as evenly split as this one is.
It has "woollen" (UK) and "woolen" (US) in roughly equal numbers. It has "jewellery" (UK) and "jeweled" (US).
It does not have a lot of recognise/recognize class words.
To me personally, UK seems logical and natural, but then I'm Canadian, so ...
For consistency, the contributors should probably settle on something.
Bear in mind that English is the default language of Wikipedia, and so people internationally, from Lithuania or Mongolia let's say, have only a modest amount available in their own languages.
So where are they likely to go? Here. This article exists in no other language. And here we have inconsistency.
Varlaam (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardized spelling 

message: , could you please undo your edits to the sources? Yes, they weren't the same as what was previously here, but what was previously here is awful. Just the name of the author and a random number, which only a connaisseur would know is the page. Hell, in one of the references, it's the chapter and not page number. All those sources should be made more like mine, not more like what was there before. The *book* isn't even listed, only the author, which is ridiculous. UtherPendrogn (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? I've improved it, including with my last edit identifying Owen-Crocker on the first occurrence. I suspect someone may have intended a notes and bibliography pattern, where repeated sources were fully identified in the bibliography and only page numbers given in the notes; I considered making that change but decided to leave it to others. I can't see any rationale for taking it back to varying usage, including removing the identification on the first use. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You've not improved it. You've removed his name and only put "Owen-Crocker", not Gale R. Owen-Crocker, the name he is published under, also removed the name of the book, the publishers, the date, the chapters. You also broke several sources which are no longer invoked. I'm going to try and clean it up. 
EDIT (29/11/2016 19:12): I could definitely be missing something, though. Could you point me to the policy you used when making your edits? If I'm wrong, I will revert immediately. Looking at it, it does seem very pedantic to note the details in full each time. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

text: I think you may have missed this edit, where I put the full publication info on the first occurrence of the Owen-Crocker source. This was the state of the article as I found it, after you inexplicably reverted Yobot creating named refs for repeated references and placing the punctuation correctly before the reference. Note that in addition to never identifying Planché, the article identifies Brooke twice and uses Owen Crocker many times before starting to identify that source every single time. That was the situation I tried to fix, in addition to the bare links, inadequate identifications, and I found the Regia Anglorum handbook source was now a broken link, and so supplied an archive link. I fail to see where I broke sources?? The policy is, not to change reference formatting without good reason. This article had a mix of formats—as I say, I think at one point someone was aiming for Notes and Bibliography, and that might well be best, since a limited number of books are used repeatedly—so I made it consistent, including last name and page only when referring the second and following times to the same book (which is quite acceptable). If you insist on full identification every time, which it seems you do, I won't stand in your way—I was only gnoming—I suggest you also reduce the number of columns from four to two, since such narrow columns are unsuitable when the references are all long. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the benefits of shortening it after the first entry but also find "Owen-Crocker 41" to be too crude. Something like "Owen-Crocker, Dress in Anglo-Saxon England, p. 41" might be better, with full credentials on the first page. You were right to modify it in the first place, but could have benefited from discussing here, as some users above discussed issues (which are still not resolved). UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Henry VIII has the format I'd like to see, where it would be "Owen-Crocker p.41" with "Owen-Crocker" being a link to the full source. What do you think?UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I would highly recommend adding the full citation to a "Works Cited" section within the Bibliography section, that then can be linked to, especially if you are using different parts of the book (I always default to a Works Cited when I am bein very precise about book citations), Sadads (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let Yngvadottir handle it, he/she's clearly more knowledgeable on Wikipedia syntax than I am, I've basically fucked the page up now. Sorry. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've met Gale Owen-Crocker at Kalamazoo, I'm sure--it's been a while. At any rate, she is a she. I'll look into that book you asked about, Yngvadotyir; I'm on campus tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

text: You can start unfucking it by undoing this and the subsequent edit, which bizarrely insert full citations a dozen times or more. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You've not read any of the above, have you? Also, this is hounding. UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I have--I saw you said you fucked it up, which is a correct statement; you have 31 (thirty-one) full citations of Owen-Crocker's book in the notes, which is ridiculous. No, this is not hounding: I'm following Yngvadottir's lead; she asked me for something on my talk page. We've been working together for many years. Also, this is my field so I take an interest in it. Please stop edit-warring about the "they", by the way; it is not redundant. PS: I see now you got blocked; that's too bad, but not surprising. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I am embarrassed for the project that we even have to discuss this. "They were fastened by brooches at the shoulders, though have sometimes been found as low as the breasts." doesn't make any sense, especially the bolded part. UtherPendrogn, please stop turning perfectly good sentences into garbage.--Adam in MO Talk 17:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you for the edification. I had no idea. --Adam in MO Talk 21:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "They" 

message: Associated with the reference to Owen-Crocker concerning Migration Age dress, was this: "Wakerley grave 74". It's now been removed because the editor who converted the reference style mistook it for an undefined book reference. It's the cemetery and grave number of the burial that supports the point. I wasn't sure which cemetery so left the format alone when I went through the Owen-Crocker references, but if possible the point of precision should be incorporated. (Maybe this means we need articles on a whole bunch of excavated cemeteries. I wouldn't be surprised; that's the kind of article we tend to lack). Yngvadottir (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wakerley Grave" 

message: I am taking a class where we are learning about Wikipedia and how to find and edit articles.  I think this article could use more information on who the Saxons were in the lead.  it would be nice to see more information on the dress of Women and Children.  I also noticed that the picture examples of men's clothes were mostly kings.  It talks briefly about embroidery but doesn't say if it is used on their clothes or just on tapestries.  
DMcCune80 (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added info to the lead paragraph.  Added some cited info to the types of material used for clothing.  Expanded on the sections of Women and Children clothing.  
DMcCune80 (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation