Talk:Yeoman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unfortunate mess of an interesting article[edit]

I was trying to read this article, and I think it needs a complete rewrite from blank page, although the material is here, it's too jumbled and incoherent. Several sections could be spun off to their articles, with short paragraph and a link tot he main content elsewhere. The number of quotes, some of them even repeated, is also surprising for a Wikipedia article, and taking up plenty of space to convey some minor linguistic points. --86.115.23.185 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is multiple articles stacked on top of each other and wearing a coat. Most of these types of Yeoman are unrelated concepts beyond sharing the same name. I added a too long template BananaBork (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article needs to be broken up. Unfortunately, the term yeoman suffers from having sometimes seemingly unrelated meanings at different times on history; which makes it difficult to describe what a yeoman was/is. My New Year's Resolution is to dive back into this article and create the necessary spin-offs.--AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So ... you are saying this article needs to be dumbed down for the masses? adapted for Simple English Wikipedia (with all due respect to that undertaking)? I think us few people who are interested in "yeomen" might deserve a jumble of quotes and the occasional incoherence (?) to make it more fun to read, but I guess that is might be an unpopular opinion. Still, your partially rather favourable title of this discussion page - and the perceived disinterest, as by lack of it, in actually doing the actual implementaion work - leaves me hoping. Unless some analytical hobbyist ... oh dear, there is more to read on this page. But I guess that all was rather reasonable work, since I still enjoyed reading the article, making this comment rather moot. Also, I did want to further democracy add my ill-perceived opinion since there is no law against stupidity (yet), and I had already typed so many nice letters, which would not have happened in Gutenberg's time. Still, I hereby totally revise my opinion, thanks to @AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist's hard work. SwissGermanDude (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlining of article has begun[edit]

Hi, y'all!! Unfortunately for me, I have to update/rewrite some of the articles that will become the Main articles for some sections of Yeoman. Then I can cleanup & streamline Yeoman. Right now, I'm working on updating & expanding A Gest of Robyn Hode. Anybody interested can visit that article's talk page for details. After that, I plan on returning to my draft of a new main article for the Yeoman#Yeoman archers. Then it's Chaucer's turn ... Ta-ta for now!--AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 01:[edit]

Hi, y'all!! Slight change of plans. I'll be splitting Yeoman#Household attendant or servant first in order to finish up A Gest of Robyn Hode#Historical analysis. Tally-ho! --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 02:[edit]

Hi, y'all!! Yeoman archer has been split off. I'm working on a summary for Yeoman#Yeoman archers right now. Looking ahead to Yeoman#English Navy yeoman, I'm considering copying the Yeoman-archer-on-ships stuff to Yeoman Archer as a separate section, but I have enough interesting stuff for a decent Start-class main article on the "King's Ships", the precursors to the RN. It doesn't exist. It would be a good place to talk about logistics/supply chain stuff for the Hundred Years War, as well as the cross-channel trade. I know there is an article on the Tudor navy, so this new article would stop there. Ideas? Ta-ta for now! --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 03:[edit]

Hi, y'all!! Started work on streamlining Chaucer. I'm planning on merging the Canon's Yeoman; but leaving the Knight's Yeoman here. Since he has no tale, the Knight's Yeoman has no main article, nor do any other of the 'tale-less' characters. I'm considering a separate main article for medieval Yeoman Foresters as a split off the Forester main article (because of issues I'm running into with streamining Gest) -- maybe that would be a good fit for him ... Ideas??? Ta-ta for now! --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be COPYing, not MERGing, the Canon's Yeoman content. Sorry about that; it's been a long session today :( --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split of /*Household Attendant or Servant*/[edit]

First article split. Because of size/content --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split of /*Yeoman Archer*/[edit]

Because of size/content --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i always thought yeoman derived from yewman, an archer using a longbow of yew. I guess I made that up, but I am still surprised OED doesn't seem to consider it even to dismiss it. Longbows of yew have been around for thousands of years, but they became particularly significant in the 13th-14th century around when yeoman first appears. I am guessing that archers might have been a middle level job in a royal court, and might have been drawn from freeholders. Maybe that is too rapid an evolution from an
archer to Chaucer's canon's servant, and the dates of the various meanings don't work, or there are other reasons to disabuse me of this folk etymology. However, I have assumed this was the etymology of yeoman almost since I first read stories about Robin Hood more than 50 years ago. 2601:602:8F7F:9A00:3030:85B2:29F9:871B (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, however all material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Wikipedia:Verifiability- GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]