Talk:Geoffrey Chaucer
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Geoffrey Chaucer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 183 days  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
T.Wang_ex_Cheng.JPG){kind=small}
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 183 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Original manuscripts edit
"Even the earliest surviving manuscripts are not Chaucer's originals": Do we even know if there were any "originals"? Chaucer was an oral performer and may have never written them down. His recitals may have differed from one to another, explaining why the written versions differ so much. Additionally, many or all (save apparent copies) may have been written by an audience member from memory rather than a scribe as it was being spoken. This could also explain the "fragments" as he likely did not tell all the tales at a single performance. Are there "original" manuscripts for his other works? Obviously I am not an expert ;-) but I hope this entry is helpful and if appropriate an expert could amend the text to be more clear. Ealtram (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Vandalism-s archived edit
Two cases of vandalism got archived. Is it OK to un-do these vd-s in the archive ("... although occasionally some exceptions may apply.") ?
The original valuable contrib: diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGeoffrey_Chaucer&diff=451471050&oldid=450659324
There were several cases of vandalism
between:
2013-07-01T12:55:58 and
2013-08-26T17:02:41
done by user:Binladensfish and several IPs.
Many of these vd-s were reverted, but two got overlooked:
Vandalism performed: on:
- 2012-11-01T15:21:59 (after "£10" added: "bvbrgbnnghb rtbntrhnn") diff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geoffrey_Chaucer&diff=prev&oldid=520908372
and
- 2013-08-26T17:02:41 : added a curse directly under the header "Raptus".
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geoffrey_Chaucer&diff=next&oldid=562388768 .
2013-10-28T07:12:39 user:Legobot archived this section "Raptus" (containing vd-s).
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geoffrey_Chaucer&diff=next&oldid=578370911
Potential typo? edit
At the end of the eight paragraph under the section Career, there is this line: "This is a request for temporary leave from work presented to King Richard II, hitherto believed to be the work of one of his subordinates due to the low level of language". Should this be, "There is a request..."? Stephanos100 (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- This looks ok to me. It follows on from "Chaucer's "only surviving handwriting" dates from this period", so the "this" explains what the document in his handwriting is. "The document" might be slightly clearer than just "This", I suppose - what do you think? Tacyarg (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're right, guess I skipped the sentence preceding it. I do agree though that it could probably be clearer. What about something like,
- "Chaucer's 'only surviving handwriting' dates from this period: a request for temporary leave from work presented to King Richard II, hitherto believed to be the work of one of his subordinates due to the low level of language."
- I like your suggestion as well. Stephanos100 (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, though I'd probably go with "previously" rather than "hitherto", on the grounds of simplicity. Tacyarg (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Stephanos100 (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, though I'd probably go with "previously" rather than "hitherto", on the grounds of simplicity. Tacyarg (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Categories edit
Why is the Chaucer article categorized as "Low-importance Literature"? Not even "Mid-importance"? Who is of higher importance in Middle English poetry than Chaucer? It's also a "Mid-importance Astrology" article, so, I guess he was a more important astrologer than he was a literary figure. How are these "High-importance", "Low-importance" categories determined? Pascalulu88 (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, silly. I've bumped him up to high. Maybe it was because he was high for poetry, & the low was for his prose. Anybody can change the ratings, & frankly they matter very little. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm a new editor and some things aren't obvious to me... Pascalulu88 (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
satirized character in Canterbury Tales edit
monk , pardoner , friar and cook 72.255.59.139 (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)