Talk:Mary Rose/2010/January
He he
[edit](*Channels Beavis and Butt-head* He he, bollock dagger, he he.) No, seriously, what a fantastic article. I've gone through and made a few edits, mostly for British English spelling. Very impressed indeed: well done all. 86.148.48.248 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- (*Uhuhuhuhuh! Pansy...*) Thank you very much for the compliment, anon.
- Peter Isotalo 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know, uh, who would be more gratified by you two, uh, young men: Beavis or Butt-head. Heheheheh. --Una Smith (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Information about why things were the way they were on ships of her date
[edit]The Mary Rose is one ship of her date about which the most is known. Often the wreck of Mary Rose is the source of information on ships of her date, etc. It therefore makes good sense to have explanation why things were the way they were in the article on this ship.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I assume this is about the reversion of my shortening of the intro to "Armament". The problem is that I've noticed that the text is extremely long for a very narrow topic. Currently, the article is longer than either Han dynasty or World War II, which isn't entirely reasonable. My cut was the one thing that wasn't directly related to the ship, which is why I thought it better to move it to naval tactics in the Age of Sail. That kind of info is relevant to all ships of this era, not just the Mary Rose, and none of it is actually a direct result of examinations of the Mary Rose itself. Is there really any reason to keep it all here?
- Peter Isotalo 21:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)