Talk:Royal entry

Merge

Oppose This has been discussed before & I think the Flemish material is too specific. The merge proposal has not been set up correctly - for one thing it is now 2013. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The year was easily fixed; were there other problems? Oreo Priest ^talk 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Weak support Seems like most of the prose on the Joyous Entry page is the same subject as what's here. I think it's important to be information preserving though, so a list of Royal Entries might need to be set up. Also, references to the Joyous Entry of 1356 and the corresponding charter should be no less prominent than they are on the Joyous Entry page. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, exactly, there's the problem - that would probably give WP:UNDUE weight in a combined article. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I should clarify that if 'Joyous Entry' is a disambig page between a) royal entry b) the 1356 charter and c) the list, then I don't really see how any undue weight would be given. Oreo Priest ^talk 17:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

How would that work if you are merging them? I don't see the need for a list myself. Altogether there would be hundreds of them. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, would you advocate removing the existing list of Joyous entries from that page? Oreo Priest ^talk 18:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No - it's almost a list article already, with just a brief introduction. I'm still not seeing what the problem with the current arrangement is. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm now unclear what exactly the proposal, or problem it is supposed to fix, is. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closed after 8 months. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  OK, fair enough. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nudity in the entries

I've removed the statement about the acceptance of nudity in the entries. While nudity may have occurred in the entry of Charles the Bold into Lille, that unique instance is not enough to assert that there was a "surprising amount" of public nudity of both sexes. As for Wilenski's source, it is a 18th-century copy of a lost 15th-century original. That source also reports that the three women in the roles of the three graces were the three "ugliest" women in town--in other words, it was a rare instance of farce in an otherwise austere iconographic tradition. Even if this event happened as recorded in the surviving third-hand document, it certainly does not constitute the norm that the public had grown accustomed to. Wawaca (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

References