This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
I removed some of the duplication in (1) - Wales in the Early Middle Ages[1], but there remains very significant duplication. I have been puzzling about how to resolve this, and think more input is required. Referencing on this article and the child articles is in better shape than in the overall history article. Content is drifting in some places, whilst broadly the same.
My questions:
Is this page required? History of Wales divides the Middle Ages into three and links to the child articles above. Merging this page with the history of Wales article would remove a lot of the duplication (not all of it).
If this page is useful, what level of detail should be in each article? As a general principle, the parent articles would summarise the child articles, but with 3 tiers, what goes in the summary of the summary?
In principle, having articles with this many satellite articles can work, but to add value there needs to be something different. On one level, the narrower the focus of the article the more certain aspects can be delved into. There may also be topics which an article which looks at the entirety of the Middle Ages would be better suited to, where the cut off dates for the finer periodization may make that content more difficult. For example the main article on Wales in the Middle Ages could have a section on the economy, which may be easier to paint on broad strokes. The structure may end up being quite similar, but with very different content and the main article taking a lighter approach to the summary. Done well, it would involve a fair amount of signposting between articles.
All that said, it would take some effort to do and if consensus that a single page about medieval Wales would be easier to maintain I think that would be an entirely reasonable approach.
Richard Nevell (
talk)
18:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
I removed some of the duplication in (1) - Wales in the Early Middle Ages[1], but there remains very significant duplication. I have been puzzling about how to resolve this, and think more input is required. Referencing on this article and the child articles is in better shape than in the overall history article. Content is drifting in some places, whilst broadly the same.
My questions:
Is this page required? History of Wales divides the Middle Ages into three and links to the child articles above. Merging this page with the history of Wales article would remove a lot of the duplication (not all of it).
If this page is useful, what level of detail should be in each article? As a general principle, the parent articles would summarise the child articles, but with 3 tiers, what goes in the summary of the summary?
In principle, having articles with this many satellite articles can work, but to add value there needs to be something different. On one level, the narrower the focus of the article the more certain aspects can be delved into. There may also be topics which an article which looks at the entirety of the Middle Ages would be better suited to, where the cut off dates for the finer periodization may make that content more difficult. For example the main article on Wales in the Middle Ages could have a section on the economy, which may be easier to paint on broad strokes. The structure may end up being quite similar, but with very different content and the main article taking a lighter approach to the summary. Done well, it would involve a fair amount of signposting between articles.
All that said, it would take some effort to do and if consensus that a single page about medieval Wales would be easier to maintain I think that would be an entirely reasonable approach.
Richard Nevell (
talk)
18:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)reply