Talk:Medieval Corsica

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)