This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
It is not primarily a dream vision. It is primarily a debate poem in form, then is a satire in content. It draws on the dream vision tradition, and this is an important (if relatively small) part of the poem, but that is not its main categorisation either in content or form. I have therefore included the dream vision element, along with a brief description of said dream vision, within the "contents" section instead (where it joins the description of the more predominant satiric elements).
Neither is there any evidence that Mum and the Sothsegger and Richard the Redeless are part of a two-part text. Such thinking is out of date and largely rejected within the academic community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Static shadows (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this "thinking is out of date", it should be mentioned in the article with a mention of the fact.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
