Talk:Renaissance: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Reverted edits by 166.102.231.101 (Talk); changed back to last version by Tiff) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
As for your last sentence, maybe it's a crosscultural thing, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. |
As for your last sentence, maybe it's a crosscultural thing, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. |
||
[[User:Tiff|Tiff]] 20:48, 7 Feb 2005 (CST) |
[[User:Tiff|Tiff]] 20:48, 7 Feb 2005 (CST) |
||
I rolled back the last entry, because I'm not sure about the veracity of the source (given it was only one sentence and very poorly (gramatically) written). If the author had logged in or written a previous contribution, I could have checked their other work to see if they had shown previous expertise in the area. |
|||
[[User:Tiff|Tiff]] 02:23, 22 May 2005 (CDT) |
|||
Latest revision as of 01:41, 29 March 2007
You know I'd really like to take a large knife to the links section of this page.
Saying something like:
Whats in style? How do you say that in Renaissance?
hi, we could reply to you easier if you logged in. Anyway, I can see that the article is leggy and overgrown - full of more links than content in sections. But I'd hate to just loose the links. Perhaps the links could be shifted off to a subpage on the relevant topic (eg Renaisance poets) and just a couple of links retained for the main page. As for your last sentence, maybe it's a crosscultural thing, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Tiff 20:48, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)
I rolled back the last entry, because I'm not sure about the veracity of the source (given it was only one sentence and very poorly (gramatically) written). If the author had logged in or written a previous contribution, I could have checked their other work to see if they had shown previous expertise in the area.
Tiff 02:23, 22 May 2005 (CDT)
