Medieval Marriage



Medieval Marriage in the news

`Shadowlands' takes look at writer Lewis 

Albuquerque Tribune - Jan 12 9:10 AM
Matthew Naegeli has been a huge fan of C.S. Lewis ever since he was a child and went tumbling through a magic wardrobe into Lewis' popular fantasy series, "The Chronicles of Narnia.
Sun King of the oil industry 
Financial Times - Jan 12 9:33 AM
The seemingly never-ending tale of corporate scandal, executive greed and accounting fraud that has unfolded over the past year has pushed some of the world’s most admired corporate titans off their pedestals.

Dog-Collared Svengalis 
Dartmouth Review - Jan 12 12:17 PM
The problem of reconciling religion and secular government is more significant than it is often made out to be. By this I don’t mean that it’s of great magnitude, in the sense that theocracy or atheist tyranny is imminent; however, the friction between believers and the secular regime they obey is persistent and in fact inheres in liberal democracy itself.

The Thai Western That Time Almost Forgot 
The New York Sun - Jan 11 10:15 PM
Surely you've heard the stories. Miramax is evil, they recut, they bully, and, most ominously, they have a vault full of movies that have been put on ice for reasons long since forgotten. But the vault's most famous victim, "Tears of the Black Tiger," is now finally getting its release from another distributor, Magnolia, who snuck into Miramax territory and liberated this Thai treasure. When ...

- Medeival Marriage

Here is an article on Medieval Marriage.


Hello Cmyk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good Medival Marriage links for newcomers:

  • The five pillars of Wikipedia
  • How to edit Medeival Marriage a page
  • Help pages
  • Tutorial
  • How to write a great article
  • Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy Medeval Marriage editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages Mediveal Marriage using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check Medieal Marriage out Wikipedia:Where Meideval Marriage to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- Solipsist 07:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You like in JE?Which area?Tan DX 10:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Citing references and how to

Hiya. This is a bit late, but oh well. I saw your question on Talk:The Arnolfini Portrait asking how to cite books. There are a number of ways, and any one of them is good. If one falls out of fashion, it will get fixed by someone for you in the end :) You could:

Like in Harvard referencing, stick the author name and year of publication in brackets after the comment, and then create a References subsection towards the bottom of the article with the full details. So

  • "...and instead feels that it is a betrothal (Hall, 1994)." in the main body; and
  • "Hall, E 1994 The Arnolfini betrothal: medieval marriage and the enigma of Van Eyck's double portrait University of California Press, Berkeley. " in a references section.

I like this method, but in general, Wikipedians don't seem to use Harvard referencing.

Use the footnoting system as described by User:Solipsist on the talk page you asked on.

Use the m:Cite.html system which is fairly new but gaining in popularity. I find it is much easier to find an example and copy it than to work through the explanation on the page I linked to! Generally, you put <ref>Footnote goes here, you can use normal markup for italics or bold and internal or external links if you want</ref> And then in a separate references subsection, you put <references/> inside. Once. Doesn't matter how many references you have made. Wikipedia figures the rest out for you. So it might be something like

  • "...and instead feels that it is a betrothal. <ref>Chapter X of The Arnolfini Betrothal: Medieval Marriage and the Enigma of Van Eyck's Double Portrait, Edwin Hall, 1994, published by University of California Press. ISBN 0520212215</ref> " in the main body; and
  • "<references/> in a references section.

Both the footnoting and the cite.html system come out looking much the same, with footnotes in the text and a list of them all in the reference section at the bottom. The big reason that Cite.html is winning at the moment is that you can have multiple references to the same source done, and the footnote system can't. So even though it looks complicated, if you want numbered notes, I'd strongly consider Cite.html first. But don't mix multiple systems in one article. Wikipedia isn't that clever, and you can end up with parallel sets of footnote numbers :)

Hope all this helps!

Telsa (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Search Term: "User_talk:Cmyk"