Jump to content

Talk:Charles I of England

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleCharles I of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 30, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 13, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
June 3, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
June 14, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
June 6, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
November 4, 2013Good article nomineeListed
December 18, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 30, 2005, January 30, 2007, January 30, 2008, January 30, 2009, January 30, 2010, January 30, 2012, January 30, 2015, January 4, 2017, and January 30, 2019.
Current status: Featured article

Five members

[edit]

I'm wondering if the section on the Five Members should be summerised more and then linked to the article Five Members which should have all the details? Currently, I do not any such link. Jp2207 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two links to that article in that section. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Celia Homeford, indeed there is already a link. Thanks for spotting that. But don't you think it is better to have the link to the main article as I did it and remove the other in-line link? This is common practice in the rest of the article where sections have their own page (Bishops' Wars, Irish Rebellion, Long Parliament). My thinking is that such sections should be broad summaries only, or relating to Charles part played in them obviously, and otherwise avoid details best left in their own articles. Thoughts? Jp2207 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay, re my change may I suggest that the inclusion of the names is superfluous to an article on the life of Charles I? The Five Members article can be easily followed by anyone who cares to find them. I left in Pym as he was the clear leader of the parliamentary opposition to Charles at the time, as referenced several times in the prior section. But I will grant that my first effort is a bit clumsy. How about keeping it simple?:
“On 3 January 1642, Charles directed Parliament to give up five specific members of the Commons - Pym included - on the grounds of high treason.”
Jp2207 (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is lost by naming the five and it's weird to name Pym but not the others. DrKay (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay Simplicity is lost. And I explained why Pym is mentioned. Anyway, it was just a suggestion based on the existence of a whole article on the 5 members topic to avoid duplication. I can easily live with it as is. Jp2207 (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 February 2024

[edit]
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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Charles I of EnglandCharles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland – Charles was not only the king of England. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and WP:SNOW close. It is well-established on Wikipedia that, where someone was a monarch of multiple countries, their title is that of the most important country. The same applies to move requests on his sons Charles II and James II/VII. PatGallacher (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, though. In some instances, no countries are shown at all. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth II lived & Charles III lives in the United Kingdom. Yet we omit "of the United Kingdom" from there page names. Then there's George III, George IV, William IV, Queen Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII & George VI. So apparently 'where' they live is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2024 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2024

[edit]

so, i'd like to change Elizabeth Stuart's birthday day, because you put "29th" december while she was born on the 28th. My sources are the wikipedia articles about Elizabeth Stuart. Thanks again Amy2010ben (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see WP:CIRC. The source given in the article (Weir 1996, pp. 252–254) says 29th, though I do appreciate that ODNB (https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/8637) says 28th. Other sources give both dates, e.g. [1]. DrKay (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editorializing?

[edit]

@Pbritti, I likewise get your impulse here, but in these two cases I really think you're missing the unproblematic meaning actually being communicated. We would not feel concerned about editorializing if we said Charles suffered a setback, or that his army was defeated, etc. There is nothing actually subjective here. Remsense ‥  22:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your thoughts here, but "unfortunately" is a subjective position we should not be taking. We should avoid inserting any sort of language that suggests an event was definitively good or bad beyond an objective measure, as Wikipedia should not take such stances. A reader can be trusted to interpret the statements on their own. As it stands, the MOS seems pretty clear on the matter, and I think we should follow it until a consensus (either implicit or explicit) overturns it. Thanks for opening this discussion; please ping if you reply, as I have my fingers in a few pies right now and my watchlist is annoyingly crowded. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti
Crucially, I do feel there is a clear distinction between saying an event was unfortunate—meaning, disadvantageous, ruinous, unexpected, etc.—generally versus observing that an event was unfortunate for one person's life and times. The latter seems a matter of plainly reproducing what sources say, where the former is indeed potentially a subjective value judgment we can't make in wikivoice. The MOS makes clear these are "words to watch" and this seems to me like such a situation that the guideline stresses such words may be perfectly acceptable to use.
This may be one of those cases where the small indivisible remainder consists of the shades of lexical value in words—that's how it goes sometimes, and I just wanted to make my case clearer pending what anyone else thought—if no one else finds it a loss then there's no need to argue it further. No biggie. Remsense ‥  23:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Should my change stand without anyone agreeing for a few days more, I think BRD might dictate we revert to the verbiage prior to my changes. Thanks for being willing to engage in this! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]