This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nottinghamshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire 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.NottinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject NottinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject NottinghamshireNottinghamshire 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
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
A discussion has opened on Talk:Battle of Bosworth Field about whether the name "Battle of Bosworth Field" is tautologous, incorrect, or inappropriate, and whether the article should be moved to Battle of Bosworth (with "Bosworth Field", but not "Battle of Bosworth Field", as alternatives). Some of the same arguments apply here. If anyone wishes to comment, I suggest that – in the first instance, at least – we have a single discussion on the Bosworth talk page. GrindtXX (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What ever you opinions on the name of the battle do not move this articles without presenting evidence of usage in reliable sources to justify the move using the WP:RM process on this page as any move is controversial given that the name "Battle of Stoke Field" is used even if it turns out not to be the most common name used in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The info box lists 'Lambert Simnel as Edward (Imposter)'. I wonder if Edward is a bit vague and it might say as Edward, Earl of Warwick (Imposter), or as Edward VI, as Simnel had been crowned in Ireland and was claimed by his supporters as King Edward VI. The downside is the latter would cause confusion with the later (genuine) Tudor King. Dunarc (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Towards the end of the "Battle" section the article mentions the fate of Lord Lovell noting that he "disappeared after the battle and was never seen again". It goes on to say "In the 18th century a body was found inside a secret room at his house, Minster Lovell HallinMinster Lovell, Oxfordshire, leading to conjecture that it was his." However I wonder if this is worth including as the main article on Viscount Lovell notes that others have pointed out that it is unlikely to be true, as "Lovell had hardly spent any time at Minster Lovell, and would not have had a faithful servant there who would hide him for years" and at the time Minster Lovell had been "granted to Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, Henry Tudor's uncle" and so was "hardly an appropriate hiding place for Francis Lovell". It also suggests alternate possibilities. Given this, I wonder if the Minister Lovell story should either be removed or noted as being conjecture that other have disputed and other theories exist as to Lovell's fate after the battle? Dunarc (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
