Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::I believe you're the only person here swearing. -- ] (]) 12:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::I believe you're the only person here swearing. -- ] (]) 12:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::You think civility is limited to bad words? You truly are stupid. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 12:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::You think civility is limited to bad words? You truly are stupid. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 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. ] ] 15:59, 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. ]] (]) 12:23, 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. ]] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:35, 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. ] (]) 15:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
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 within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages'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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. 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
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 is an FA so I'm hesitant to do this myself, but there's no link to wikiquote page for Guy Fawkes which I think there should be. Also, I know that V for Vendetta is linked to from the Gunpowder Plot in popular culture page but I'm wondering if it should also be here, in the see also section or something. 76.171.22.15 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
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. EricCorbett01:03, 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)
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. Parrotof Doom08:09, 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. Parrotof Doom09:37, 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 - Talk13:28, 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)
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. Parrotof Doom12:36, 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)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
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)
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 - Talk20:57, 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. EricCorbett21:02, 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)
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)
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)
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 - Talk02:39, 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. Parrotof Doom11:30, 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 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)
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)
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? EricCorbett15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
