Talk:Cruentation

Untitled

I am not used to all of what wikipedia does, but I have noticed that this article is sort of below standards. It looks like it started out as a college paper, and has redundancy. I would not know how to go about fixing this, but I thought I could at least bring this up for someone who knows. --68.61.250.127 (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above; it's largely because the 4th and 5th paragraph appear to be copied verbatim from reference [5]. Will attempt a re-write when I get a chance. 21:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC) EddyH — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddyH (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cruentation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AjAoSpp14TuEJ%3Awww.scribd.com%2Fdoc%2F1107265%2FNational-Institutes-of-Health-highlights%20ius%20cruentationis&cd=3&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl&source=www.google.nl
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100310102701/http://u0028844496.user.hosting-agency.de/malexwiki/index.php/Gottesurteil to http://u0028844496.user.hosting-agency.de/malexwiki/index.php/Gottesurteil

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Etymology?

What does/ do the older latin name/s mean in translation, etc.? An 'Etymology' chapter or at least paragraph is really, really missing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3037:409:47F6:1:1:965A:3A2C (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Improvement in Progress

I am going to be working on adding sections and expanding this article over the next few weeks. I welcome help with relevant resources to include. Msnare33 (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have added section breaks, reorganized some paragraphs, and added a couple of details, as well as wikilinks. Msnare33 (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead section has extra information

This article has multiple issues. I have tagged this article as also including extra information in the lead section about cruentation that is not expanded upon in the body of the article. To me, it seems the lead section explains what cruentation was, where it was practiced and even provides a literary reference; none of which is discussed elsewhere in the article in any more detail. See MOS:LEAD for purpose of the lead. It should provide an accessible overview to the whole article; but not be considered as part of the article. Information in the lead should be mentioned in the body of the article too. See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Copyedit

The issue about this article reading like a research paper could partly stem from its use of archaic words like "whence". The article could do with some copyediting and perhaps some reorganisation, too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)