Talk:De nugis curialium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A single standard needs to be imposed on the list of references at the end of the page. I used a version of the MLA bibliographical style for the final entry there. Since I'm still unclear on Wikipedia standards in this regard, I didn't alter any of the other entries.

I also just added a stub marker. So far, the list of contents has far more detail than the main body of the article. --Estmere, 8/05/06

Thanks for your improvements to the list of contents -- if you fancy enlarging the main body of the article, that would be great! Andrew Dalby 17:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope to get to the main body of the article eventually. Since you created such a detailed contents list (thanks -- that was an awful lot of work), I decided my first project would be to fill in the remaining holes so I could insert Distinctio and chapter numbers for every chapter summary. That may take a while. estmere 8/8/6

Just replaced the stub tag once again. If you're tempted to remove it once more, please read the article itself before doing so. At present it has two sentences about the author of the De Nugis. And TWO short sentences about the De Nugis itself. I just went to the Stub guidelines page and doublechecked -- this is unambiguously a stub. Please leave the stub tag in place until the stub is no longer a stub. But feel free to expand the stub! Thanks estmere 11:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are addressing me. It's still not obvious to me that this article is a stub as you insist, but it's not a big deal so I'll leave it in place for now. BTW your tone is a bit incivil. There's no need to get so worked up about such a trivial detail. —dv82matt 12:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment -- any more info on the author can be added to his own article, Walter Map, rather than here. It's true, though, that more needs to be said about the book in general. Andrew Dalby 12:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ya, I agree it needs to be expanded, not all articles needing expansion are stubs though. That said, since I'm not a primary editer of the article, I'll not insist. If replacing the tag every so often is excessivly irritating to any editors here you may want to insert the following above the stub tag.

<!-- !!IMPORTANT!! - Please do not remove the stub tag. See talk page for details. -->

—dv82matt 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The "you" in my original comment was intended to be general, rather than specific. I first put up the stub tag 12 days ago, and it's been reverted twice in the last 9 days -- so even if I had meant to be specific, there are already at least two people I could have been addressing. I'm a bit surprised/hurt/whatever at being labeled "incivil." "Please" appears twice in my comments, "thanks" once. I don't call anyone names or deliver any judgment on their actions. I lay out the reasons for my own action and point to specific evidence. If you were hurt by my comments -- as you seem to imply -- I apologize; that was in no way my intent. But I also think charges of incivility should be reserved for instances where it's clear that the person in question intended discourtesy. estmere 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification of your comment. I suppose you were mostly just frustrated at having the tag removed more than once. I hope you weren't hurt by my reply. I did not intend it to be a big deal. I just wanted you to be aware of how your comments came across. Happy editing. —dv82matt 02:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)