Talk:Licence to crenellate

Dubious/Rejected licences in list

Davis's list of licences as published by the Castle Studies Group Journal included entries noted as "Reject" and "Dubious". The CSGJ did not omit them, and this list should therefore follow that principle, but should add to each such entry "Rejected by Davis", "dubious" etc. This is ongoing work to be done, many are already marked "dubious", there are only a few of them, and the reader to whom this would really be critical in the immediate future should consult the original source anyway before relying 100% on WP. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC))

As you can see at talk:battlement, the general feeling is that the list of 400+ licences examined by Davis should not be included in the article. The venue has changed, but the arguments are still relevant, making the above statement immaterial. Nev1 (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The article referred to was the article Battlement as well you know. Not relevant, no such discussion has been had in relation to the new more focussed article. But as you still believe it hampers the readability of the current article "Licence to crenellate", I'll move the list to a stand-alone article as I suggested on Battlement talk, with a link to the article. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC))

Yes I know, because I said that in my response. But it most certainly is relevant here because your poorly formatted list copied straight from Davis isn't particularly easy to parse. Nev1 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - a list of places known (or possibly known) to have been given a 'license to crenellate' seems entirely appropriate, assuming that you can form a manageable list - which seems true. However if the text is copy-pasted from http://www.castlestudiesgroup.org.uk/Licences%20to%20Crenellate%20-%20Philip%20Davis.pdf that would be a copyright violation, unless that work is available under a suitable license.Oranjblud (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)