Talk:1346
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| 1346 has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 8, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1346, the Black Plague (illustration pictured) infected the first Europeans in the Crimea in what has been called one of the worst biological attacks in the history of warfare? | |||||||||
Edward III's debts
[edit]The claim that Edward’s debts caused the collapse of the Bardi & Peruzzi have been changed as they are too simplistic - see Hundred Years' War (1337-1360), Compagnia dei Bardi Chwyatt 13:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wrad (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
missing sections
[edit]I think that to be complete, this article should have some mention of the situation in the Americas and Africa at this time - even if we don't know exact dates for events or names of people, it is known what civilisations were exisiting in Mexico and South America at this time and I imagine that the same is true of much of Africa. This information should be included.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Most people in the years project disagree with your view. They would rather only mention areas and events specifically about 1346, not generally. I'm of the same opinion. Sorry, but I'm afraid the opposition to your request is overwhelming. The biggest complaint I got about 1345 was that the Americas and Africa sections were not specific to the year. In general, we plan to put such sections in century and maybe decade articles, but not year articles, unless we can find info specific to the year. Wrad (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- But surely if someone is looking for an overview of the world in 1346, common sense would dictate that the article provide information on the whole world at that time not just those parts for which conveniently dated events exist? This is not an idle problem: for example, I don't like the timelines: I would much prefer the article without them. I also think the births and deaths sections are unnecessary and links to the categories (which are more complete and provide just as much information) maintained instead, however I accept that these are just stylistic points. The lack of information on the world outside Europe and Asia is in my opinion a major failing of the article and without it I would oppose this article at FAC and similar review processes (and would probably have done so at GA). Please can you show where support for this is overwhelming so that I can look over the arguments presented?--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since there are no sources for information on the Americas or Africas in 1346, this article doesn't break the breadth requirement. That's the way the breadth criteria is interpreted. If I was going to add something about what was happening on those continents in this year, I would have to make it all up. That would be WP:OR. Wrad (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- On Talk:1345, posts by Pharos, John Carter, GeeJo, jnestorius, and Adam Bishop all express fear that the article or parts of the article may be too broad and that 1345 would be no different than a 1346 article would be. See also concerns at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#1345_question as well as comments by + sj+, Grimhelm, and Tony further down in other sections on that talk page. If you want to change that opinion, the best place to do it would probably be on the year project talk page, not here. Wrad (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't have the time at the moment to enter a lengthy debate on this here or elsewhere, but I do think that you need to think carefully about what these articles should be: are they 1) the world in 1346 or 2) a chronology of events specifically known to have taken place in 1346? The former can be incorporated into the latter but not vice versa. There is no real problem with repeating some information from article to article, so that is not a valid reason for not including information on those parts of the world for which accurate chronological records are lacking, and it does make the article appear to have a Euroasian bias: you should at least explain that the other parts of the world are excluded because the records are long lost. Anyway, I originally came to this article because I think this is definately the best way to create a year article that is informative and interesting about the time period it describes and (with the reservations outlined above), I support your efforts. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is by no means the end. We're going to be expanding other articles, so I'll be sure to bring it up. Wrad (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't have the time at the moment to enter a lengthy debate on this here or elsewhere, but I do think that you need to think carefully about what these articles should be: are they 1) the world in 1346 or 2) a chronology of events specifically known to have taken place in 1346? The former can be incorporated into the latter but not vice versa. There is no real problem with repeating some information from article to article, so that is not a valid reason for not including information on those parts of the world for which accurate chronological records are lacking, and it does make the article appear to have a Euroasian bias: you should at least explain that the other parts of the world are excluded because the records are long lost. Anyway, I originally came to this article because I think this is definately the best way to create a year article that is informative and interesting about the time period it describes and (with the reservations outlined above), I support your efforts. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- On Talk:1345, posts by Pharos, John Carter, GeeJo, jnestorius, and Adam Bishop all express fear that the article or parts of the article may be too broad and that 1345 would be no different than a 1346 article would be. See also concerns at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#1345_question as well as comments by + sj+, Grimhelm, and Tony further down in other sections on that talk page. If you want to change that opinion, the best place to do it would probably be on the year project talk page, not here. Wrad (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since there are no sources for information on the Americas or Africas in 1346, this article doesn't break the breadth requirement. That's the way the breadth criteria is interpreted. If I was going to add something about what was happening on those continents in this year, I would have to make it all up. That would be WP:OR. Wrad (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- But surely if someone is looking for an overview of the world in 1346, common sense would dictate that the article provide information on the whole world at that time not just those parts for which conveniently dated events exist? This is not an idle problem: for example, I don't like the timelines: I would much prefer the article without them. I also think the births and deaths sections are unnecessary and links to the categories (which are more complete and provide just as much information) maintained instead, however I accept that these are just stylistic points. The lack of information on the world outside Europe and Asia is in my opinion a major failing of the article and without it I would oppose this article at FAC and similar review processes (and would probably have done so at GA). Please can you show where support for this is overwhelming so that I can look over the arguments presented?--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Louis of Bavaria
[edit]According to the article on this person, he died in 1347 not 1346. Punkmorten (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Confirmed. Wrad (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Quotations
[edit]Two quotations appear in the Asia section, with footnotes stating they came from Benedictow, The Black Death. IMHO, they aren't the words of your usual modern historian (Benedictow's book apparently was published in 2004), so are they translations of contemporary historians? If so, shouldn't these quotations be given citations in the form "A, cited by Benedictow" followed by the usual bibliographical information? -- llywrch (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)