War of the League of Cambrai is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 14, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seamless meld! Was that all the material that wasn't already here? Good edit! -- Wetman 10:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I think this article is ready for Primetime FA status. -- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I thought about making a war info box but its almost impossible because of the shifting alliances. Do I have this right: it starts out with the Pope & France vs. Venice (1508-10), then its the Pope & Venice vs. France (1510-12).. and finally its Venice & France vs. the Pope (1512-1516) (not to mention all the other countries involved) Astrokey44 12:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
War of the League of Cambrai results | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I've removed the box listing the results. It drastically over-simplifies both the phases of the war and the actual results; a correct description of the result would be a paragraph of text for each phase. I see no need to use such simplified information merely for the dubious benefit of having another box on the page, which already has two. Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Some further clarification on why the result box is a bad idea:
Hopefully this makes clear why I decided to remove it. Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
"Christine Shaw, Julius II: the Warrior Pope (Oxford:Blackwell) 1993." - can we get a page number with that? It's not really a citation, otherwise.
(And, in any case, there's no need to revert stylistic cleanup merely because you want to add the citations back; nor to arbitrarily change citation styles; and particularly not to alter citations to point to an entirely different place without realizing that a different edition is being used.) Kirill 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
While I'm not suppose to make forum discussion comments, I just have to say, clicking on the link on the main page and reading the box. I just can't help but laugh. So much side switching! DarkGhost89 ( talk) 12:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Wowowow! All stop!
The link to the Council of Pisa, which occurred in the text that narrated how Julius and Spain agreed punish Florence because Florence had slighted the Pope by allowing Louis to hold the Council of Pisa in Florentine territory, incorrectly lead the reader to the Wiki article on the Council of Pisa (1409) during the Western Schism in which a second antipope was elected. This event transpired more than one century ago before the Wars of the League of Cambrai and obviously had nothing to do with Florence or Julius II or the Spaniards; the source of the confusion is that there were TWO Councils of Pisa, the First at 1409, the Second at 1511. The Second Council of Pisa was also known as the Fifth Council of the Lateran, which was a debate over clerical reform and sovereignty of the monarchs v. Papal claims and the source of Julius II's irritation.
Jonathan Chin
A discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies.. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 07:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This article was on a list to be considered for Wikipedia:Featured article review. I've added a few "citation needed" tags; there may be more places citations are needed. Major contributors, for notification purposes: User:Kirill Lokshin, User:Wetman, User:Viator slovenicus. -- Beland ( talk) 01:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Do I need to talk about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.64.232 ( talk) 06:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't have much knowledge of the League, but it seems to me that the Crown of Castile did not play much of a role, if any in the war. Is there any evidence of Ferdinand using his regency over Castile to become involved? If not then it doesn't seem like mentions of 'Spain' are accurate, and references to it should be replaced with the Crown of Aragon. Linking the Spanish Empire is certainly wrong, as this refers mostly to Spain's colonial empire in the Americas. Ecrm87 ( talk) 23:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
War of the League of Cambrai is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 14, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seamless meld! Was that all the material that wasn't already here? Good edit! -- Wetman 10:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I think this article is ready for Primetime FA status. -- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I thought about making a war info box but its almost impossible because of the shifting alliances. Do I have this right: it starts out with the Pope & France vs. Venice (1508-10), then its the Pope & Venice vs. France (1510-12).. and finally its Venice & France vs. the Pope (1512-1516) (not to mention all the other countries involved) Astrokey44 12:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
War of the League of Cambrai results | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I've removed the box listing the results. It drastically over-simplifies both the phases of the war and the actual results; a correct description of the result would be a paragraph of text for each phase. I see no need to use such simplified information merely for the dubious benefit of having another box on the page, which already has two. Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Some further clarification on why the result box is a bad idea:
Hopefully this makes clear why I decided to remove it. Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
"Christine Shaw, Julius II: the Warrior Pope (Oxford:Blackwell) 1993." - can we get a page number with that? It's not really a citation, otherwise.
(And, in any case, there's no need to revert stylistic cleanup merely because you want to add the citations back; nor to arbitrarily change citation styles; and particularly not to alter citations to point to an entirely different place without realizing that a different edition is being used.) Kirill 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
While I'm not suppose to make forum discussion comments, I just have to say, clicking on the link on the main page and reading the box. I just can't help but laugh. So much side switching! DarkGhost89 ( talk) 12:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Wowowow! All stop!
The link to the Council of Pisa, which occurred in the text that narrated how Julius and Spain agreed punish Florence because Florence had slighted the Pope by allowing Louis to hold the Council of Pisa in Florentine territory, incorrectly lead the reader to the Wiki article on the Council of Pisa (1409) during the Western Schism in which a second antipope was elected. This event transpired more than one century ago before the Wars of the League of Cambrai and obviously had nothing to do with Florence or Julius II or the Spaniards; the source of the confusion is that there were TWO Councils of Pisa, the First at 1409, the Second at 1511. The Second Council of Pisa was also known as the Fifth Council of the Lateran, which was a debate over clerical reform and sovereignty of the monarchs v. Papal claims and the source of Julius II's irritation.
Jonathan Chin
A discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies.. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 07:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This article was on a list to be considered for Wikipedia:Featured article review. I've added a few "citation needed" tags; there may be more places citations are needed. Major contributors, for notification purposes: User:Kirill Lokshin, User:Wetman, User:Viator slovenicus. -- Beland ( talk) 01:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Do I need to talk about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.64.232 ( talk) 06:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't have much knowledge of the League, but it seems to me that the Crown of Castile did not play much of a role, if any in the war. Is there any evidence of Ferdinand using his regency over Castile to become involved? If not then it doesn't seem like mentions of 'Spain' are accurate, and references to it should be replaced with the Crown of Aragon. Linking the Spanish Empire is certainly wrong, as this refers mostly to Spain's colonial empire in the Americas. Ecrm87 ( talk) 23:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)