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.
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.
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 Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays 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.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
I notice the word conspiracy in the start of the article. This words strikes me with a different resonance since the pandemic. I notice the article was last edited 3 days ago? But why? It is long history, how can that change?
'Conspiracy' has a defined meaning and is definitely applicable to a plot involving multiple people to assassinate a king. A provable conspiracy is not the same as a conspiracy theory. Urselius (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could be mentioned, for the benefit of Western European readers as the Continent (outside Eastern Orthodox Christendom) used the Gregorian calendar. However the date was not moved when Britain joined the Gregorian calendar in 1752, as it continued to be held on 5th November on the new calendar system.Cloptonson (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
HiDesertarun, I've reverted this move. A previous move request for a similar title demonstrated significant opposition, and while that was quite some time ago now, it's enough to suggest that a unilateral move is not the way to go. If you do feel that there is strong evidence supporting a change, I'd suggest elaborating on that in a formal move request. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to notice this, for people in the UK its a lot like we didn't have an article on Valentine's Day and instead there was an article called "Couples Love Day". After name change there will be other follow up edits necessary. Desertarun (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it would be worth considering a formal move request once more, as there's no absolutely no doubt that "Bonfire night" is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME in the UK. Last time, the suggestion was "Bonfire night" which was rejected as too broad, partly on the basis that around the world there are many nights that could be so called. But in the UK, "bonfire night" means not just any bonfire night but the bonfire night of 5 November. Options could include "Bonfire night in the UK" or "Bonfire night (UK)" – but those might be too specific given that this article includes a section called "In other countries". My preference would be "Bonfire night (Guy Fawkes)", where "Bonfire night" is the common name, and "(Guy Fawkes)" distinquishes it from other bonfire nights that don't share the same history. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I don't think the common name is clear cut. There are certainly regional differences. Google Trends has "Guy Fawkes Night" tracking as more popular than "Bonfire Night" in the UK. Britannica lists it as Guy Fawkes, as does English Heritage. Away from commonname, there is more to the night than bonfires, and some events don't have a bonfire - all bonfires will have Guy Fawkes, but not all Guy Fawkes celebrations will involve a bonfire. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 11:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're relying on local convention in your area to dictate commonname, when there's a whole country to take into account? OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 12:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it is at least some type of evidence. All anyone has presented for 'bonfire night' is that it is "overwhelmingly" the common name. Source: Trust me, bro. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 07:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my post below, for the use of 'Bonfire Night' in a UK government publication. I imagine that the government would follow popular usage in a publication aimed at, amongst other things, public safety. Urselius (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Google trends does provide some evidence. Contrary to the assertion above, it shows that "Bonfire Night" is a vastly more popular search term than "Guy Fawkes Night" in the UK. Perhaps you compared two different things, search term vs celebration? If so, apples v oranges, which doesn't tell us anything. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Current usage is overwhelmingly 'Bonfire Night', and not 'Guy Fawkes Night'. The ramifications of religiously motivated assassination plots in the early 17th century have become increasingly forgotten, and irrelevant, but the bonfire and the fireworks remain relevant. Plus the article badly needs more modern and recent content. Urselius (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC) 'Bonfire Night' is in official UK government usage. Department for Communities and Local Government (a branch of the UK government). From the publication: Celebrating with bonfires and fireworks: A community guide (2015)『Fireworks cannot be let off between 11pm and 7am except on: Bonfire Night (5 November), when the cut off is midnight; New Year’s Eve, Diwali and Chinese New Year, when the cut off is 1am.』Urselius (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as I indicated above. The more general Bonfire Night article can then include more of the things that are not UK related. Out of interest, the OED lists two meanings for "Bonfire night": a general one "A night on which bonfires are lit in celebration or commemoration" and a specific one, labelled as chiefly British, "The night of 5 November, on which bonfires are lit to commemorate the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, such celebrations typically also featuring a firework display and, traditionally, the burning of an effigy of Guy Fawkes (or formerly, of the Pope)". These two meanings map well to the proposed general and specific articles. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That goes against WP:CRITERIA - specifically Precision: "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." Having two articles, bonfire night and bonfire night (uk) - or some variation - creates unnecessary ambiguity, where guy fawkes night is more precise. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 07:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. When you include both terms "Guy Fawkes Night" and "Guy Fawkes Day", combined they are more commonly used than "Bonfire Night". So I think retaining "Guy Fawkes" in the title is best. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that you go against UK government usage, I imagine that trumps Wikipedia guidelines, which I think you have misapplied here anyway. Urselius (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic here is mistaken. In order to be understood in the easiest manner and by the widest possible readership the government, in a safety document, must follow common usage. Otherwise they would run the risk of not being understood. Urselius (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME generally only applies when the five criteria are met. And where did you get that from? Because it completely goes against pretty much every RM I've ever taken part in (and that's thousands). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp, I apologize, I did misquote it it does say that "Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above.". Nonetheless, the current name is more in line with WP:CONCISE regardless. Estar8806 (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is usual practice that WP:COMMONNAME trumps everything unless it cannot be made unambiguous or there are WP:COMMONALITY considerations. And I think there is little doubt that Bonfire Night is overwhelmingly the common name. The fact it needs a disambiguator is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1. Guy Fawkes Night, and Guy Fawkes Day is observed in many countries, not just the UK. 2. Guy Fawkes is a very specific bonfire for a very specific purpose. We have other bonfire nights for a purpose, often referred to uniquely, none are referred to as bonfire night, we have Eleventh Night celebrations of 11 July Battle of the Boyne, 23 June, Saint John's Eve night, BeatLl, Haalloween, Fninish ehannus. In summer, e herein the UK bawe have rbeque and no effigy, July, and on November 5th, and only November 5th we have Guy Fawkes on the Guy Fawkes bonfire site with an effigy. We already have Bonfire Night, Bonfire night in the UK, most of the title is redundant and only serves to confuse. But better just Guy Fawkes or we are cancelling history and maybe Wiki shouldn't be doing that. Exnihil (talk)13:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is "cancelling history". Bonfore night is what we call it in the UK. We don't call it Guy Fawkes night. In any case, that would suggest we were celebrating Fawkes instead of condemning him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struggling to understand the rationale for your !vote here, as you seem to be suggesting that the proposed title is some sort of 'rebranding' that you find objectional . Do you have evidence to bring that "Bonfire Night" is not the WP:COMMONNAME in the UK? MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that I think the proposed name is too vague as it assumes too much that is untrue. Although some people in some locations may use "Bonfire Night" to refer to their Guy Fawkes Night celebrations, that does not mean that the terms are synonymous worldwide. "Guy Fawkes Night" is WP:PRECISE and unambiguous, the proposed name is not as it requires disambiguation. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My previous assertion is entirely true, because 'Bonfire Night' and 'Guy Fawkes Night' are entirely interchangeable in British usage. With the proviso that 'Bonfire Night' is more commonly used. Urselius (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to Guy Fawkes Night as "Bonfire Night" is like rebranding Christmas as "Winterfest". This is complete rubbish. It's always been commonly referred to as Bonfire Night, certainly throughout my half-century of life in the UK. It's not some neologism invented relatively recently to avoid offending anyone as with Winterfest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is purely your opinion. You also don't seem to realise that "Guy Fawkes Night" would be generally something celebrating Mr Fawkes, whereas this is entirely the opposite. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A rather bizarre comment from an American, given this is an article on a British topic that British people say should be moved because yes, that's indeed what we call it, and the current title is not what we commonly call it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re missing the point— this isn’t about linguistic nationalism but rather the fact that you will not stop saying the same thing over and over! Dronebogus (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
