|
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Ireland}}, {{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom}}, {{WikiProject England}}, {{WikiProject Former countries}}. Remove 5 deprecated parameters: B-Class-1, B-Class-2, B-Class-3, B-Class-4, B-Class-5.
|
||
(11 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
⚫ | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Ireland|importance= low}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom |auto=inherit |importance=Low}} |
||
⚫ | |||
{{WikiProject Former countries|class=C|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Former countries}} |
|||
{{WPMILHIST |
|||
|class=Start |
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start |
||
|<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
|<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
||
|B-Class-1=no |
|B-Class-1=no |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
== Lead again == |
== Lead again == |
||
There was quite a bit of discussion about the lead before the version prior to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_England&diff=next&oldid=573610888 this change] was put in, only recently. It seems a bit premature to suddenly rewrite the lead again, especially without any substantive discussion. The "copy edit" edit summary is also somewhat misleading. There are major changes here, not all of which are necessarily improvements: we have lost the alternative term "English Commonwealth"; introduced a fixed end date of 1660; lost the brief explanation of the slightly different ways the term is applied; <del> lost reference to the fact that during the early Commonwealth, England was nominally ruled by Parliament and the Council of State </del>; and, on a more trivial point, introduced a grammatical error by adding an unnecessary "and" ("and later with .."). <small>'''[[User:N-HH|< |
There was quite a bit of discussion about the lead before the version prior to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_England&diff=next&oldid=573610888 this change] was put in, only recently. It seems a bit premature to suddenly rewrite the lead again, especially without any substantive discussion. The "copy edit" edit summary is also somewhat misleading. There are major changes here, not all of which are necessarily improvements: we have lost the alternative term "English Commonwealth"; introduced a fixed end date of 1660; lost the brief explanation of the slightly different ways the term is applied; <del> lost reference to the fact that during the early Commonwealth, England was nominally ruled by Parliament and the Council of State </del>; and, on a more trivial point, introduced a grammatical error by adding an unnecessary "and" ("and later with .."). <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<span style="color:navy;">N-HH</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<span style="color:blue;">talk</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<span style="color:blue;">edits</span>]]'''</small> 10:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
:There were no substantive deletion of text so Copy Edit was the correct term (particularly as I contributed to these conversations on the talk page and as far as I can tell never said that I agreed with the minor additions that I removed). To address your points in order |
:There were no substantive deletion of text so Copy Edit was the correct term (particularly as I contributed to these conversations on the talk page and as far as I can tell never said that I agreed with the minor additions that I removed). To address your points in order |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
::*I misread the changes at first glance, but did strike my incorrect claim that we had lost the Council of State stuff |
::*I misread the changes at first glance, but did strike my incorrect claim that we had lost the Council of State stuff |
||
::*Sure |
::*Sure |
||
::<small>'''[[User:N-HH|< |
::<small>'''[[User:N-HH|<span style="color:navy;">N-HH</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<span style="color:blue;">talk</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<span style="color:blue;">edits</span>]]'''</small> 14:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::*The benefit in loosing English Commonwealth is a matter of style, including both makes this lead [[Design by committee|look like the camel]] it is. If the article was called "English Commonwealth" then I would have removed "Commonwealth of England". |
:::*The benefit in loosing English Commonwealth is a matter of style, including both makes this lead [[Design by committee|look like the camel]] it is. If the article was called "English Commonwealth" then I would have removed "Commonwealth of England". |
||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
:::::*Yes the Commonwealth lasted until 1660 in one sense, and that's probably the term generally used at the time, but the terminology today tends to prefer the "Protectorate" for the post-1653 period, which is marked as a contrast to the pre-53 period, especially when looking at the government; and about which we have a separate article ourselves of course. I think we need to reflect that by fudging it slightly in the opening sentence here while explaining later in the lead the (different) uses of the term. And if we don't fudge it, why pick 1660 rather than 1653? As I said before, that may not be ideal but we have to deal with the sources and the terminology as we find them: in my view it's the least worst option and makes sure we cover all the ground and all the ambiguity. See for example this encyclopedia entry, [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=an-eXXA3DBMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Concise+Encyclopedia+of+the+Revolutions+and+Wars&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QrdBUt_-IMXBhAeW9oFI&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Commonwealth&f=false at p126]. |
:::::*Yes the Commonwealth lasted until 1660 in one sense, and that's probably the term generally used at the time, but the terminology today tends to prefer the "Protectorate" for the post-1653 period, which is marked as a contrast to the pre-53 period, especially when looking at the government; and about which we have a separate article ourselves of course. I think we need to reflect that by fudging it slightly in the opening sentence here while explaining later in the lead the (different) uses of the term. And if we don't fudge it, why pick 1660 rather than 1653? As I said before, that may not be ideal but we have to deal with the sources and the terminology as we find them: in my view it's the least worst option and makes sure we cover all the ground and all the ambiguity. See for example this encyclopedia entry, [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=an-eXXA3DBMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Concise+Encyclopedia+of+the+Revolutions+and+Wars&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QrdBUt_-IMXBhAeW9oFI&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Commonwealth&f=false at p126]. |
||
:::::*See above. Plus, while the essay you cite correctly suggests avoiding "refers to .." where it's unnecessary, that doesn't mean we can't or never do. This seems a rather obvious situation where it can't really be avoided in open text. The concern is less about what exactly any footnote might say than with the principle of relying on such a footnote rather than the main text in the first place, which leaves the explanation stuck at the very end of the entire page. A brief discussion of terminology has been in the main text [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_England&oldid=553703779 for a while], long before my recent changes, so I think it's legitimate to accept doing it that way round as the status quo pending consensus to change it. |
:::::*See above. Plus, while the essay you cite correctly suggests avoiding "refers to .." where it's unnecessary, that doesn't mean we can't or never do. This seems a rather obvious situation where it can't really be avoided in open text. The concern is less about what exactly any footnote might say than with the principle of relying on such a footnote rather than the main text in the first place, which leaves the explanation stuck at the very end of the entire page. A brief discussion of terminology has been in the main text [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_England&oldid=553703779 for a while], long before my recent changes, so I think it's legitimate to accept doing it that way round as the status quo pending consensus to change it. |
||
:::::Overall I just think the outright removal or shifting of information from a lead, much of which has been there in some form or other for a while, should be avoided unless there's a clear benefit to doing it. I'm sure that, given the structure, the content it can always be improved, but that's a different point. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|< |
:::::Overall I just think the outright removal or shifting of information from a lead, much of which has been there in some form or other for a while, should be avoided unless there's a clear benefit to doing it. I'm sure that, given the structure, the content it can always be improved, but that's a different point. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<span style="color:navy;">N-HH</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<span style="color:blue;">talk</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<span style="color:blue;">edits</span>]]'''</small> 16:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Modified union jack used during the second Commonwealth == |
|||
http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1660/05/13/ notes that the Jack of the second Commonwealth was the old union flag with a harp on it, and that Pepys mentions the harp was removed in 1660 during the voyage over to the Netherlands to bring Charles II back to England. -- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 18:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Reorganisation (again) == |
== Reorganisation (again) == |
||
Line 109: | Line 105: | ||
The last sentence is redundant and within the same paragraph, so no other edits are necessary. |
The last sentence is redundant and within the same paragraph, so no other edits are necessary. |
||
— AA<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Aanderson@amherst.edu|Aanderson@amherst.edu]] ([[User talk:Aanderson@amherst.edu|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aanderson@amherst.edu|contribs]]) 01:19, 23 February 2015</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
:Actually while it may be a duplication it is more accurate than the part you have highlighted "Just before and after the execution of King Charles ..." All of the acts mentioned were passed after the execution and not just after (which would imply days, possibly weeks) but more than a month and a half later. As I said If there is repetition then edits elsewhere may be needed. -- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 01:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::PBS, while I agree that is better, it is a small matter and I would prefer that you edit this first sentence to your liking instead of restoring this last sentence, which I find to be a distraction since it makes me stop and think to myself “didn’t I just read this?”. — AA <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Aanderson@amherst.edu|Aanderson@amherst.edu]] ([[User talk:Aanderson@amherst.edu|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aanderson@amherst.edu|contribs]]) 02:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::As you highlight, with this instance, Wikipedia is a camel (a horse designed by a committee). My point is that the whole paragraph needs rewriting, and deleting the more accurate sentence does not help fix he problem. I am willing to do it by I am not sure when as I have several other pressing issues I am dealing with, in the mean time I do not think that your initial solution fixes the problem. So yes if you do not make the changes I will do so, but I am not sure when. -- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 12:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Possible revisions and additions to come...? == |
|||
I may be doing some addition, I do not see any comments from the past five years, but please correct anything I add that may be erroneous. [[User:Notarealperson2|Notarealperson2]] ([[User talk:Notarealperson2|talk]]) 19:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC) |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Commonwealth of England article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 61 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 19, 2005, May 19, 2006, May 19, 2007, and May 19, 2008. |
There was quite a bit of discussion about the lead before the version prior to this change was put in, only recently. It seems a bit premature to suddenly rewrite the lead again, especially without any substantive discussion. The "copy edit" edit summary is also somewhat misleading. There are major changes here, not all of which are necessarily improvements: we have lost the alternative term "English Commonwealth"; introduced a fixed end date of 1660; lost the brief explanation of the slightly different ways the term is applied; lost reference to the fact that during the early Commonwealth, England was nominally ruled by Parliament and the Council of State ; and, on a more trivial point, introduced a grammatical error by adding an unnecessary "and" ("and later with .."). N-HH talk/edits 10:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I’m ploughing up ground that others thought settled, but I think there are some issues with titles and scopes of articles related to this one. Not, I should say, with the title of this article—I won’t dare to touch that issue—but as the preceding archive link suggests, this Talk page has been something of a rallying point for edits on the whole inter-article matter in the past, so I’ve chosen to make my observations here.
Far be it from me to tell the hard-working editors who’ve carefully hammered out consensus that they’re wrong and they have to do this or that, but… well, the danger everyone faces, writing in their own areas of expertise, is losing perspective on how non-experts will come to the topic, isn’t it? -- Perey (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to partially revert this editbyAanderson@amherst.edu, because two of the thee facts are correct. If there is repetition then edits elsewhere may be needed.
Source for the sequence of events:
From List of Ordinances and Acts of the Parliament of England, 1642–60
-- PBS (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PBS, the text reads:
Just before and after the execution of King Charles I on 30 January 1649, the Rump passed a number of acts of Parliament creating the legal basis for the republic. With the abolition of the monarchy, Privy Council and the House of Lords, it had unchecked executive, as well as legislative, power. […two sentences…] After the Execution of Charles I, the House of Commons abolished the monarchy and the House of Lords.
The last sentence is redundant and within the same paragraph, so no other edits are necessary.
— AA— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aanderson@amherst.edu (talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 February 2015
I may be doing some addition, I do not see any comments from the past five years, but please correct anything I add that may be erroneous. Notarealperson2 (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]