| Revision as of 11:42, 29 October 2013 edit101.119.15.163 (talk) →Citation style← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:48, 29 October 2013 edit undoGaijin42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,866 edits →Citation styleNext edit → | ||
| Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
| ::::::::::"The 1938 writers were referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place" - in your opinion. Last response on this matter from me, you're plainly an idiot. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 11:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | ::::::::::"The 1938 writers were referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place" - in your opinion. Last response on this matter from me, you're plainly an idiot. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 11:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::No, the 1938 writers were indeed referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place. There is only one ], and only one meaning for "presbytery" in a modern Catholic context. And I note your continued substitution of mindless abuse for rational argument. -- ] (]) 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | :::::::::::No, the 1938 writers were indeed referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place. There is only one ], and only one meaning for "presbytery" in a modern Catholic context. And I note your continued substitution of mindless abuse for rational argument. -- ] (]) 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| PoD : ]. ] (]) 14:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:48, 29 October 2013
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guy Fawkes Night article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Guy Fawkes Night is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
 | Guy Fawkes Night is part of the Gunpowder Plot series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 5, 2004, November 5, 2005, November 5, 2006, November 5, 2007, November 5, 2008, November 5, 2009, November 5, 2010, November 5, 2011, and November 5, 2012. |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 Archives (Index) |
Linking to presbytery
Articles generally ought not to link directly to disambiguation pages - so the ambiguity in "barricade himself in the presbytery" needs to be resolved. Clearly, Presbytery (residence) is meant. There is no place in a Presbytery (architecture) in which to barricade oneself. If the priest happened to be there, it would say he was barricading himself in the church. A brief perusal of the diagram ont he latter page will indicate that this is merely a matter of common sense. StAnselm (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- That may be so, but accusing an established editor of vandalism - particularly the one who got this article to FA - is an insult. And you should certainly not have put a vandalism template on his talk page in the middle of what is clearly a minor content dispute. Richerman (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Adding 116 extraneous spaces with no reason given sounds like vandalism to me. In any case, I have added the disambiguating link back in, since no-one can seem to offer a a reason against having it. StAnselm (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't sound like vandalism to me. Many people find double-spaced text easier to read, and were taught to type that way. That HTML has a limitation in being unable to display the double-spacing to WP readers doesn't alter the fact that those editing the text may find it easier to read. Eric Corbett 01:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I'm happy to keep this article as a double-spaced article if there is consensus to do so - but that should be clearly marked for potential editors. Certainly single space is the wikipedia standard, and that is enforced in the article's appearance. I thought I was improving the article by removing extraneous bytes, and I was reverted without a reason given. StAnselm (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't sound like vandalism to me. Many people find double-spaced text easier to read, and were taught to type that way. That HTML has a limitation in being unable to display the double-spacing to WP readers doesn't alter the fact that those editing the text may find it easier to read. Eric Corbett 01:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Adding 116 extraneous spaces with no reason given sounds like vandalism to me. In any case, I have added the disambiguating link back in, since no-one can seem to offer a a reason against having it. StAnselm (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- An experienced editor might presume that another experienced editor, when writing this article, was unable to resolve this problem and so left the text intentionally vague. The source does not say whether he barricaded himself in the church or a separate building and it is therefore incorrect for you to make this change. And the double spacing is most certainly there for a reason, which is to help me edit. I have difficulty making sense of text without these spaces. Parrot of Doom 08:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- As I noted above, it appears that there is consensus to keep the double spacing, and I am content to drop the issue. The presbytery disambiguation is quite another matter, however. You can't barricade yourself into a chancel unless you move a whole lot of pews. It's clearly the house that is meant. StAnselm (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- The reference in footnote 42 of the article says (in the paragraph above the one that uses the word "presbytery"), But within two years anti-Catholic riots in Ipswich led to the clergy being imprisoned in their homes for two days and a night. StAnselm (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- "You can't barricade yourself into a chancel unless you move a whole lot of pews" - and how do you know that isn't what happened? The source is ambiguous, therefore, we must be. If you want to confirm what really happened, find another source that elaborates. Parrot of Doom 09:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- How is that ambiguous? There is a summary statement about the clergy being barricaded in their homes, and then there is a paragraph that elaborates, and talks about the curate barricaded in the presbytery. It's clearly his home that is meant. I can't believe you can't see it, and I'm very sorry that I got you offside on this, because it really appears to me that you don't want to see it. StAnselm (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- But the BBC article is specifically about the church - and it says in the subheader "A church in Ipswich has survived riots,...". The BBC article does not appear to about the whole church complex - just the church itself. A person from the church specifically says "A mob went through the town smashing Catholic-owned businesses and headed for the church which led to the curate Father Patrick Rogers barricading himself in the presbytery for two days." ... if I had just that information - I'd say it was in the church. It's the very bit you cite that makes it unclear. The BBC article conflicts with the other article - thus the reason for the DAB link instead of a more specific one. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Catholic presbyteries were generally attached to (or very close to) churches, because of the requirement for regularly saying mass. Per this source, the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest. -- 101.119.14.145 (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- But the BBC article is specifically about the church - and it says in the subheader "A church in Ipswich has survived riots,...". The BBC article does not appear to about the whole church complex - just the church itself. A person from the church specifically says "A mob went through the town smashing Catholic-owned businesses and headed for the church which led to the curate Father Patrick Rogers barricading himself in the presbytery for two days." ... if I had just that information - I'd say it was in the church. It's the very bit you cite that makes it unclear. The BBC article conflicts with the other article - thus the reason for the DAB link instead of a more specific one. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- How is that ambiguous? There is a summary statement about the clergy being barricaded in their homes, and then there is a paragraph that elaborates, and talks about the curate barricaded in the presbytery. It's clearly his home that is meant. I can't believe you can't see it, and I'm very sorry that I got you offside on this, because it really appears to me that you don't want to see it. StAnselm (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- "You can't barricade yourself into a chancel unless you move a whole lot of pews" - and how do you know that isn't what happened? The source is ambiguous, therefore, we must be. If you want to confirm what really happened, find another source that elaborates. Parrot of Doom 09:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- While the riot took place shortly after 5 November, no sources make it explicitly clear that it was exclusively to do with Guy Fawkes (although the timing is probably no coincidence). In fact, The Manchester Guardian of 9 November 1863 seems to be more concerned with freedom of speech and Mayoral corruption than any anti-Catholic sentiment. And it makes no mention of any barricading, rather, it talks about attacks on the Mayor's house, the "Tower Parsonage" and an attempted assault on the Temperance Hall. So this section's removal is quite warranted. Parrot of Doom 12:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- One of sources has the riot beginning on 5 November, 1863. -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- This source from Suffolk County Council says "the ‘Anti Popery' disturbances in Ipswich in November 1863 followed the Gunpowder Plot commemorations and coincided with the salacious anti-catholic lectures given by Andre Massena." -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- While the riot took place shortly after 5 November, no sources make it explicitly clear that it was exclusively to do with Guy Fawkes (although the timing is probably no coincidence). In fact, The Manchester Guardian of 9 November 1863 seems to be more concerned with freedom of speech and Mayoral corruption than any anti-Catholic sentiment. And it makes no mention of any barricading, rather, it talks about attacks on the Mayor's house, the "Tower Parsonage" and an attempted assault on the Temperance Hall. So this section's removal is quite warranted. Parrot of Doom 12:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
RfC: Disambiguating presbytery link
 |
|
Should the presbytery link in the article be disambiguated to Presbytery (residence) (which redirects to rectory) or should it be left ambiguous? 20:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Posted notifications at the Christianity and Disambiguation WikiProjects. StAnselm (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Disambiguate: This source says "But within two years anti-Catholic riots in Ipswich led to the clergy being imprisoned in their homes for two days and a night" and the elaborates on that in the next paragraph, which says in part, "The then curate, Father Patrick Rogers, barricaded himself in the presbytery for two days and nights until the mayor was able to enrol 200 special constables and restore order." Clearly, the priest's home is meant by the word "presbytery". StAnselm (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- See my above point about the other source from the BBC - which mentions nothing about residences and is solely about the church. The sources disagree - so we shouldn't choose one over the other without further sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think they disagree at all - the BBC article has as a tagline "A church in Ipswich has survived riots" and then says "A mob went through the town smashing Catholic-owned businesses and headed for the church which led to the curate Father Patrick Rogers barricading himself in the presbytery for two days." There is nothing here that is inconsistent with the priest barricading himself in his own home, which presumably is next to the church. The mob marched towards the church, and he locked himself in his home. I agree that it might not be totally clear from the BBC article, but the other source makes it clear, and they don't contradict each other. StAnselm (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- The sources appear to have no better idea of what exactly is meant by presbytery in this context that we do, so perhaps a short note might be in order rather than a link? The note could include links to both possibilities. Eric Corbett 21:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Disambiguate to the residence. It is quite obviously improbable that the sanctuary of the church is meant. older ≠ wiser 21:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not sure which page it should be disambiguated to, but as a general rule we shouldn't be linking to disambiguation pages from articles (unless it's in the hatnotes and we're letting them know it's a disambiguation page). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- The simple thing to do would be to remove the link altogether. But that doesn't generate lots of drama, does it? Parrot of Doom 22:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, people would be left wondering, "What's a presbytery?" StAnselm (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- What is a presbytery anyway? Is there a 2-3 word description we could use in its place and avoid using the word altogether? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that's kind of the issue here. We could quite easily say "barricade himself in his house" but that is what is in dispute. The reliable sources say "presbytery", and I think it means the priest's house. StAnselm (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I still stand by not linking to disambig pages, so if forced to choose a link, I'd have to choose the residence (or as Nikimaria suggested, Wiktionary). ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that's kind of the issue here. We could quite easily say "barricade himself in his house" but that is what is in dispute. The reliable sources say "presbytery", and I think it means the priest's house. StAnselm (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- What is a presbytery anyway? Is there a 2-3 word description we could use in its place and avoid using the word altogether? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, people would be left wondering, "What's a presbytery?" StAnselm (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Disambiguate to Presbytery (residence), which is obviously what is meant here, and which (outside of specialised discussions of Architecture or of the Presbyterian Church) is in fact the most common meaning of the word . -- 101.119.15.143 (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Use a transwiki link to Wiktionary instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Per this source, the "presbytery" at St. Pancras Church is clearly the priest's house, and Presbytery (residence) is therefore the appropriate thing to link to. I'm not sure why some editors are trying to create an air of mystery about what "presbytery" means. It's a perfectly cromulent word. -- 101.119.15.35 (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Um.. no. All it proves is that there was a residence at the church. Does not mean that there wasn't also a presbytery in the church - it's perfectly possible for there to be both in a group of church buildings. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, that source proves that the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest. In any case, the other usage of "presbytery" is (1) very rare ("chancel" or "sanctuary" are usually used) and (2) ruled out by the fact that you can't "barricade yourself" in that part of a church. Take a look at the diagram: -- 101.119.15.35 (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Don't you know that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source ;-)? The source used at Presbytery (architecture), and other sources on that topic, make it clear that the area can in fact be enclosed, and so theoretically someone could barricade themselves within. Now, I agree that the other meaning is more likely, but as it's not certain (and I'm not an RS on the topic), to link only the other would be original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? The source cited above proves that the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest. And the other use of "presbytery" to refer to the chancel of a church has been obsolete for at least a century. -- 101.119.15.35 (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Go and do something useful
All this fuss over a disambiguation link, a "problem" resolved by removing the link entirely. And now, the editor who most wants to solve this by inferring something the sources don't appear to suport, is battling to keep the argument going by reverting edits that have removed the "offending" section completely. Who the shuddering fuck cares about a stupid link, other than people with too much time on their hands but not (apparently) enough to write anything meaningful?
Some may have noticed that I haven't written anything for some time now. This is exactly the kind of wooden-headed ignorant stupidity that keeps me away. I added the original material, I added the disambiguation link (because I researched the subject and was unable to clarify the matter) and I entirely support Ealdgyth's removal of it. Parrot of Doom 11:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- There seems to be a breach of WP:CIVIL here. And a rather childish "if I can't get my way on a minor point, I want to have a whole section deleted" that seems rather like WP:POINT. -- 101.119.14.242 (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've just seen on your talk page that you explicitly disown WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. I don't think Misplaced Pages benefits from people who can't play nicely with others, because Misplaced Pages is a collaborative enterprise. -- 101.119.14.242 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are a hypocrite and a prime example of the stupidity I so despise. Parrot of Doom 12:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are free to despise me, but might I suggest that if you choose not to follow WP:CIVIL, which is one of the five pillars, then the project is better off without you. -- 101.119.14.13 (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- So what's your excuse for staying? After all, you also ignore your precious civility policy. Parrot of Doom 12:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I believe you're the only person here swearing. -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- You think civility is limited to bad words? You truly are stupid. Parrot of Doom 12:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. An anonymous hypocrite with only 11 edits to his name citing the five pillars is rather revealing I think. Eric Corbett 15:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand what dynamic IP addresses are. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- You presume too much grasshopper. Eric Corbett 20:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand what dynamic IP addresses are. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. An anonymous hypocrite with only 11 edits to his name citing the five pillars is rather revealing I think. Eric Corbett 15:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- You think civility is limited to bad words? You truly are stupid. Parrot of Doom 12:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I believe you're the only person here swearing. -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- So what's your excuse for staying? After all, you also ignore your precious civility policy. Parrot of Doom 12:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are free to despise me, but might I suggest that if you choose not to follow WP:CIVIL, which is one of the five pillars, then the project is better off without you. -- 101.119.14.13 (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are a hypocrite and a prime example of the stupidity I so despise. Parrot of Doom 12:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree with the removal: to revert on the basis of a "wrong" citation style is just plain silly when there are many other footnotes with that style already in the article. To remove content as a way of solving the dispute under discussion is also silly. StAnselm (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- There are not any other citations with that style AFAICS, and since the material is not central to the article removing it seems a valid option. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's certainly not central, but I think it is useful. I'm not totally use what "that style" is. Looking at all the footnotes, most of them have the format. Footnote 4 has while footnote 13 has It's the latter I was thinking of (along with 65, 67, 68, etc.) when I talked about other footnotes in the article. In any case, the article does not have a consistent style. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's one hand-coded that needs to be fixed; other than that, all full citations except yours are {{citation}}, while yours is {{cite}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I was just using the "cite book" template on the drop-down menu. Should I be doing it some other way? StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- There are various drop-down menus, but the ones I've tried only supported the "cite" family templates (cite book, cite web, cite journal, etc.). {{Citation}} is different in that it figures out from the various parameters that are included and omitted whether to cite it like a book, journal, etc. Most of the parameters are the same, and there is a good chance it will work if you just change "cite book" to "Citation" (but be sure to look at the result carefully before finalizing the edit). Jc3s5h (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- To be precise, that odd one (in ) uses
{{cite book}}, not{{cite}}.{{Cite}}would have been acceptable, because it's a redirect to{{citation}}. This means that if you have selected{{cite book}}from a menu and filled in the parameters, you can easily switch it to the preferred style for this article by removing the wordbookbefore saving - it works without further amendment because{{citation}}recognises virtually all of the parameters recognised by{{cite book}}- the few exceptions are not offered by reference menus anyway. - I notice that nobody has mentioned that
{{cite book}}is used 10 other times, all of these being under Further reading. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- To be precise, that odd one (in ) uses
- There are various drop-down menus, but the ones I've tried only supported the "cite" family templates (cite book, cite web, cite journal, etc.). {{Citation}} is different in that it figures out from the various parameters that are included and omitted whether to cite it like a book, journal, etc. Most of the parameters are the same, and there is a good chance it will work if you just change "cite book" to "Citation" (but be sure to look at the result carefully before finalizing the edit). Jc3s5h (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I was just using the "cite book" template on the drop-down menu. Should I be doing it some other way? StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's one hand-coded that needs to be fixed; other than that, all full citations except yours are {{citation}}, while yours is {{cite}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's certainly not central, but I think it is useful. I'm not totally use what "that style" is. Looking at all the footnotes, most of them have the format. Footnote 4 has while footnote 13 has It's the latter I was thinking of (along with 65, 67, 68, etc.) when I talked about other footnotes in the article. In any case, the article does not have a consistent style. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- There are not any other citations with that style AFAICS, and since the material is not central to the article removing it seems a valid option. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I had noticed, yes, and I agree that these bone-headed discussions can be very wearing. Why don't these people go write something themselves instead of trying to make life a misery for everyone else? Eric Corbett 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Again, that is simply not a civil comment. I suggest that you withdraw it. Obviously, it's going to be difficult to find out what the dynamic IP 101.119.xx.xxx has written; my content contributions can easily be assessed with a glance at my user page. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Like PoD, I really don't give a fuck what you think. Eric Corbett 20:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Again, that is simply not a civil comment. I suggest that you withdraw it. Obviously, it's going to be difficult to find out what the dynamic IP 101.119.xx.xxx has written; my content contributions can easily be assessed with a glance at my user page. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Calendars
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request the following note be placed after the first mention of 5 November:
<ref group=nb>England and the British colonies in America changed from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar in 1752; Wednesday 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday 14 September 1752. Guy Fawkes Night has been observed on 5 November whichever calendar was in effect. Dates in the article are stated in the calendar that was in effect at the time of the event, but for purposes of the article the year is always considered to begin 1 January even though the year was considered to begin 1 March in England and the colonies before 1752.</ref>
- Which dates in the article are affected by the adoption of the Gregorian calendar? None? Eric Corbett 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Looking quickly, I see 4 November 1802. Also, there are numerous years after 1752 mentioned where it is implied the date being discussed is 5 November. In addition, many readers might not recall when the Gregorian calendar was adopted in England and might not know whether 5 November 1605 was a Gregorian or Julian date. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- But why does it matter whether it's a Gregorian or Julian date? Eric Corbett 17:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes events are commemorated an exact number of calendar years after the event (for example, Washington's Birthday until 1971). Other events are commemorated on the date with the same name, and thus are not an exact number of calendar years after the event. Anyone wishing to research 17th or 18th century publications will want to know which is the case. Also, the date the new year begins is important if searching 17th or 18th century publications.
- But the date the new year begins is irrelevant in this case. Eric Corbett 17:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article states the Observance of 5th November Act 1605 was passed in January 1606, but the persons present when the act was passed would have considered it to be January 1605. I think it is reasonable to warn readers that dates have been altered from what persons present at the events would have considered the dates to be. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The calendar used is irrelevant since it is the event and date that is commemorated, not the number of days between commemorations. Parrot of Doom 17:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The calendar is never irrelevant. If you don't know which calendar a date is stated in, you don't know when the event happened. The event cannot be compared to events that occurred in other countries that observed a different calendar.
- Also, if a future editor wants to add information involving a date to the article, the editor will need to know whether to convert the date to the calendar used in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- So should the date also be converted to the Islamic calendar? Eric Corbett 20:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- What a load of rubbish. 5 November 1605 was on....5 November 1605. 5 November 1805 was on...surprise surprise....5 November 1805. Your argument is ridiculous. Parrot of Doom 21:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Unless you were living in a Catholic country, in which case it was 15 November. Oh, weren't the plotters trying to put a new monarch on the throne and establish a regency that would be more sympathetic to Catholics? Gee, no one could ever be confused about which calender to use in this situation, could they. There is no chance that this article will ever contain any mention of any event in a Catholic country, is there? Jc3s5h (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your point is ridiculous. The date is 5 November. What other countries think the date was is irrelevant to this article. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Although this entire thread seems pedantic, all the OP is asking for is a note, which I am confused as to how this could be objectionable. Particularly the issue about the passing of the observance of the 5th of November act, where the date is part of the act name (or at least our article), and there is an obvious discrepancy. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- He's asking for a note about an irrelevance. What the date was in other countries has no bearing on anything in this article. Perhaps we should also add notes to the effect that people in other countries spoke different languages and that they also ate different foods. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree that some kind of note is necessary. The article currently says that "the Observance of 5th November Act 1605 was passed in January 1606," and that certainly requires clarification (it's even more important that the Observance of 5th November Act 1605 article contain a note, of course). -- 101.119.14.238 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. It wasn't 1606 until March, as far as those who passed the law thought. I can see of zero policy based argument why this uncontested, and relevant fact should be excluded, especially with something as minor as a note. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}}template. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)- If the note is not included, then I request that the article be dowgraded from FA to GA. Sloppiness with dates is inexcusable in an historical article. -- 101.119.14.160 (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Citation style
Since this edit in 2008 the article has used the {{Citation}} template to give full information about sources. By 2010 the harvnb template was used to make short footnotes, which in turn refer to the full citation in the bibliography (this saves space by not writing out the full citation each time the same source is used to support multiple statements). The article has evolved to the point that nearly all the citations are short footnote, and the article would be easier to read and maintain if the exceptions were migrated to the dominant style. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, but I don't think reverting an edit on the basis on the "wrong" style is a good idea. StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- So... someone else has to fix your citation that you agree isn't in the right style? As an aside, I'm not sure why it's so vitally important that this bit of information stay in the article - several folks have offered a couple of different compromises - but those have been rejected. Granted, another source was added - but why is this information so important that it MUST retain the link to the actual wikipedia article on the residence form of presbytery - rather than removing the detailed information or linking to the wiktionary definition? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, I was agreeing that harvnb is the best style to decide on - I will be happy to change the reference I added (once protection is lifted) and I think we can all chip in and fix the others. But when someone else comes along and adds content with the "wrong" reference format, changing it ourselves, or making a polite suggestion on the talk page are both preferable to reversion. In response to the aside, I am all for removing the the word "presbytery" and replacing it with "his house". StAnselm (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- But the sources are NOT clear (no matter what you may think). You said above "Well, that's kind of the issue here. We could quite easily say "barricade himself in his house" but that is what is in dispute. The reliable sources say "presbytery", and I think it means the priest's house." Any time you say "I think it means" - you're verging into OR territory. You're not sure it's the house, the sources aren't clear, and in all honesty - the incident is not needed in the article at all. It's the only post-1850 incident mentioned in the article - it's not clear from the sources that it's tied to the restoration of Catholic bishops specifically, and the simple solution is to remove the specific incident in Ipswich. I'm not sure WHY it's so important to retain this incident here. The article would not be hurt by losing it - and it would solve the problem as a compromise. Why do you insist on keeping the information in the article? I THINK the sources are not clear that the house is meant - it's likely, but it's not totally clear and when we aren't totally sure, we can't engage in OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, I was agreeing that harvnb is the best style to decide on - I will be happy to change the reference I added (once protection is lifted) and I think we can all chip in and fix the others. But when someone else comes along and adds content with the "wrong" reference format, changing it ourselves, or making a polite suggestion on the talk page are both preferable to reversion. In response to the aside, I am all for removing the the word "presbytery" and replacing it with "his house". StAnselm (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- So... someone else has to fix your citation that you agree isn't in the right style? As an aside, I'm not sure why it's so vitally important that this bit of information stay in the article - several folks have offered a couple of different compromises - but those have been rejected. Granted, another source was added - but why is this information so important that it MUST retain the link to the actual wikipedia article on the residence form of presbytery - rather than removing the detailed information or linking to the wiktionary definition? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Fix the others" - nothing needs fixing. The format is simple - harvnb for a book, citation for anything else. That's it. But if you want to change it then bear in mind you'll also have to change every article in this page too. And you can be certain I'll object at every stage. Parrot of Doom 22:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Using the wrong citation style is not grounds for removal of content. We should encourage consistent style, but removing sourced content because you don't like the style is not within policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The original removal of content was because the sources given didn't mention any connection with Guy Fawkes Night for the incident. It was returned to the article with another source given (a primary source from a diary for that date) that still didn't really tie the information to GFN. PoD's edit summary in full was "snippet view doesn't give enough context to demonstrate it was the same event, and the formatting is incorrect for an FA". As it stands right now, the information is almost a classic example of SYNTH - the second and third source given state that the priest took refuge in a presbytery (with one source being totally about the church and the other implying that the presbytery meant is the residence) and the fourth source is the only source that ties the event to GFN (although the only visible part in the snippet view is that the riots took place on 5 November. Nothing in the snippet view ties the event to GFN at all.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree (based on cursory reading) that the linkage could be stronger, and skirts (and possibly violates) WP:SYNTH. Although I don't think its that much of a stretch to say anti-catholic riots mentioned in juxtaposition to gunpoweder plot events are related. (A very analogous situation in my mind is the Kristallnacht riots being mentioned in juxtaposition to the von-rath assassination, though obviously that is a topic which later RS have made the linkage much more strongly). However, I do not hold a strong opinion on the correctness or not of the particular content as I have not read the content nor the sources claimed closely enough. I was merely commenting on the thrust of this talk section. If the content is objectionable for other reasons and there is consensus towards that end, then that is its own issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- On that last issue, this source clarifies that the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest. This source from Suffolk County Council says "the ‘Anti Popery' disturbances in Ipswich in November 1863 followed the Gunpowder Plot commemorations and coincided with the salacious anti-catholic lectures given by Andre Massena." -- 101.119.14.238 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- "On that last issue, this source clarifies that the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest." - it does no such thing. Parrot of Doom 23:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Most people are aware that in a modern Catholic context, "presbytery" always refers to the residence of the priest(s). In this case, the cited source says "The presbytery of St. Pancras Church, a two hundred year old house." This means that this is the actual building (now demolished) in which Father Patrick Rogers barricaded himself in 1863. -- 101.119.14.160 (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. The writers of that newspaper article have no idea what the 1863 writers thought, just as we don't. Parrot of Doom 08:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Huh? The sources talking about the priest barricading himself in the presbytery are modern sources (from 2011). And the writers of that 1938 newspaper article were quite clear what "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" meant. -- 101.119.15.163 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- The 1938 writers were not referring to the 1863 event. I'm completely unsurprised by your failure to understand this. Parrot of Doom 10:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- The 1938 writers were referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place. And I continue to be surprised at your failure to understand how Catholics use the term "presbytery." -- 101.119.15.163 (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- "The 1938 writers were referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place" - in your opinion. Last response on this matter from me, you're plainly an idiot. Parrot of Doom 11:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, the 1938 writers were indeed referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place. There is only one St Pancras Church, Ipswich, and only one meaning for "presbytery" in a modern Catholic context. And I note your continued substitution of mindless abuse for rational argument. -- 101.119.15.163 (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- "The 1938 writers were referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place" - in your opinion. Last response on this matter from me, you're plainly an idiot. Parrot of Doom 11:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- The 1938 writers were referring to the place in which the 1863 event took place. And I continue to be surprised at your failure to understand how Catholics use the term "presbytery." -- 101.119.15.163 (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- The 1938 writers were not referring to the 1863 event. I'm completely unsurprised by your failure to understand this. Parrot of Doom 10:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Huh? The sources talking about the priest barricading himself in the presbytery are modern sources (from 2011). And the writers of that 1938 newspaper article were quite clear what "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" meant. -- 101.119.15.163 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. The writers of that newspaper article have no idea what the 1863 writers thought, just as we don't. Parrot of Doom 08:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Most people are aware that in a modern Catholic context, "presbytery" always refers to the residence of the priest(s). In this case, the cited source says "The presbytery of St. Pancras Church, a two hundred year old house." This means that this is the actual building (now demolished) in which Father Patrick Rogers barricaded himself in 1863. -- 101.119.14.160 (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- "On that last issue, this source clarifies that the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest." - it does no such thing. Parrot of Doom 23:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- On that last issue, this source clarifies that the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest. This source from Suffolk County Council says "the ‘Anti Popery' disturbances in Ipswich in November 1863 followed the Gunpowder Plot commemorations and coincided with the salacious anti-catholic lectures given by Andre Massena." -- 101.119.14.238 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree (based on cursory reading) that the linkage could be stronger, and skirts (and possibly violates) WP:SYNTH. Although I don't think its that much of a stretch to say anti-catholic riots mentioned in juxtaposition to gunpoweder plot events are related. (A very analogous situation in my mind is the Kristallnacht riots being mentioned in juxtaposition to the von-rath assassination, though obviously that is a topic which later RS have made the linkage much more strongly). However, I do not hold a strong opinion on the correctness or not of the particular content as I have not read the content nor the sources claimed closely enough. I was merely commenting on the thrust of this talk section. If the content is objectionable for other reasons and there is consensus towards that end, then that is its own issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
PoD : WP:NPA. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- FA-Class Featured topics articles
- Misplaced Pages featured topics Gunpowder Plot featured content
- High-importance Featured topics articles
- Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- FA-Class England-related articles
- Top-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- Selected anniversaries (November 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2011)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2012)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment