Misplaced Pages

Talk:Guy Fawkes Night: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:03, 28 October 2013 editJc3s5h (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,877 edits Calendars: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:02, 6 November 2024 edit undoAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,564,251 edits Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2024-11-05. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Talk header}}
{{talkheader}} {{British English}}
{{Article history
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN |action1=GAN
|action1date=10:07, 26 November 2010 |action1date=10:07, 26 November 2010
Line 13: Line 13:
|action2result=promoted |action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=410298326 |action2oldid=410298326
|ftname=Gunpowder Plot


|action3=FAC |action3=FAC
Line 20: Line 21:
|action3oldid=433250115 |action3oldid=433250115


|ftname=Gunpowder Plot
|topic=Social sciences and society
|currentstatus=FA |currentstatus=FA
|maindate=November 5, 2017
|topic=Social sciences and society
|otd1date=2004-11-05|otd1oldid=7151063
|otd2date=2005-11-05|otd2oldid=27475403
|otd3date=2006-11-05|otd3oldid=85839096
|otd4date=2007-11-05|otd4oldid=169313256
|otd5date=2008-11-05|otd5oldid=249663930
|otd6date=2009-11-05|otd6oldid=324096465
|otd7date=2010-11-05|otd7oldid=395055910
|otd8date=2011-11-05|otd8oldid=459210173
|otd9date=2012-11-05|otd9oldid=521467802
|otd10date=2013-11-05|otd10oldid=580125403
|otd11date=2014-11-05|otd11oldid=632408337
|otd12date=2015-11-05|otd12oldid=689162324
|otd13date=2016-11-05|otd13oldid=747829888
|otd14date=2018-11-05|otd14oldid=867426603
|otd15date=2019-11-05|otd15oldid=924744549
|otd16date=2020-11-05|otd16oldid=987187979
|otd17date=2021-11-05|otd17oldid=1053451473
|otd18date=2022-11-05|otd18oldid=1119710433
|otd19date=2023-11-05|otd19oldid=1183677501
|otd20date=2024-11-05|otd20oldid=1255595620
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|1=
{{WikiProject England|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Holidays|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid|Interfaith=yes}}
}}
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{top 25 report|November 3, 2013|November 2, 2014|November 1, 2015}}
{{Old moves
| collapse = false
| list =
* RM, Guy Fawkes Night → Bonfire Night, '''Withhdrawn''', 30 July 2015, ]
* RM, Guy Fawkes Night → Bonfire Night in the United Kingdom, '''No consensus''', 15 February 2023, ]
}} }}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=FA|importance=|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=}}
{{WikiProject England|class=FA|importance=Top}}
}} }}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-11-05|oldid1=7151063|date2=2005-11-05|oldid2=27475403|date3=2006-11-05|oldid3=85839096|date4=2007-11-05|oldid4=169313256|date5=2008-11-05|oldid5=249663930|date6=2009-11-05|oldid6=324096465|date7=2010-11-05|oldid7=395055910|date8=2011-11-05|oldid8=459210173|date9=2012-11-05|oldid9=521467802}}
{{British-English}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archives/ |archiveprefix=Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive
|format=%%i |format= %%i
|age=2190 |age=2160|<!--90 days-->
|minkeepthreads=3 |minkeepthreads=4
|header={{automatic archive navigator}}
|index=yes
|maxarchsize=75000 |maxarchsize=100000
|numberstart=1 |numberstart=9
}}
|archivebox=yes
|box-advert=no}}
__FORCETOC__

== no links to wikiquote or V for Vendetta ==

This is an FA so I'm hesitant to do this myself, but there's no link to wikiquote page for which I think there should be. Also, I know that V for Vendetta is linked to from the ] page but I'm wondering if it should also be here, in the see also section or something. ] (]) 04:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


== The use of the word conspiracy. ==
== Linking to ] ==


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?
Articles generally ought not to link directly to disambiguation pages - so the ambiguity in "barricade himself in the presbytery" needs to be resolved. Clearly, ] is meant. There is no place in a ] 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. ]] (]) 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 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. ]] (]) 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. ] ] 01:03, 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. ]] (]) 01:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


I wonder when, in which edit, the word conspiracy appeared in the description. ] (]) 23:56, 5 November 2021 (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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 08:09, 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. ]] (]) 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.''' ]] (]) 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 09:37, 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. ]] (]) 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. ] - ] 13:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::Catholic presbyteries were generally attached to (or very close to) churches, because of the requirement for regularly saying mass. Per , the phrase "the presbytery of St. Pancras Church" refers to the residence of the priest. -- ] (]) 08:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


:'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. ] (]) 12:40, 18 February 2023 (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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 12:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::One of sources has the riot beginning on 5 November, 1863. -- ] (]) 12:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::: 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." -- ] (]) 12:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


== Julian to Gregorian date conversion ==
== RfC: Disambiguating ] link ==


Since the gunpowder plot was listed on an old-style Julian calendar date, shouldn't a new-style Gregorian date be listed (in brackets) as well? ] (]) 15:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
{{rfc|hist|reli|rfcid=3ED02C1}}
Should the ] link in the article be disambiguated to ] (which redirects to ]) or should it be left ambiguous? 20:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Posted notifications at the Christianity and Disambiguation WikiProjects. ]] (]) 20:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Disambiguate''': 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". ]] (]) 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. ] - ] 20:57, 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. ]] (]) 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. ] ] 21:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
*Disambiguate to the residence. It is quite obviously improbable that the sanctuary of the church is meant. ] ≠ ] 21:49, 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). <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
*The simple thing to do would be to remove the link altogether. But that doesn't generate lots of drama, does it? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 22:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
::Well, people would be left wondering, "What's a presbytery?" ]] (]) 22:33, 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? <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 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. ]] (]) 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). <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 03:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Disambiguate to ]''', 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 . -- ] (]) 23:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
*Use a transwiki link to Wiktionary instead. ] (]) 01:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Per , the "presbytery" at St. Pancras Church is clearly the priest's house, and ] 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 ] word. -- ] (]) 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. ] - ] 02:39, 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 ] 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: -- ] (]) 02:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
:]
:::*Don't you know that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source ;-)? The source used at ], 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 ]. ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 03:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


: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.] (]) 08:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
== Go and do something useful ==


== Requested move 15 February 2023 ==
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?


<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 11:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] 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: '''no consensus.''' <small>(])</small> ''']''' (]) 19:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
::There seems to be a breach of ] here. And a rather childish "if I can't get my way on a minor point, I want to have a whole section deleted" that seems rather like ]. -- ] (]) 11:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
----
::I've just seen on your talk page that you explicitly disown ] and ]. I don't think Misplaced Pages benefits from people who can't play nicely with others, because Misplaced Pages is a collaborative enterprise. -- ] (]) 11:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


] → {{no redirect|Bonfire Night in the United Kingdom}} – This article discusses the major UK celebration called "Bonfire Night" and per ] the article should move to its common name. A geographical identifier "in the United Kingdom" is required because a previous requested move to merge and overwrite the international page ] was refused. ] (]) 09:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:::You are a hypocrite and a prime example of the stupidity I so despise. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 12:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
::::You are free to despise me, but might I suggest that if you choose not to follow ], which is one of the five pillars, then the project is better off without you. -- ] (]) 12:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::So what's your excuse for staying? After all, you also ignore your precious civility policy. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 12:12, 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)
::::::::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)
::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)


I reviewed the article as part of the ] drive and moved the article per ]. The article is plainly discussing Bonfire Night in the UK and very few in the UK use Guy Fawkes Night to describe the celebration. ] (]) 18:56, 13 February 2023 (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? ] ] 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
:Hi ], I've reverted this move. A ] 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. ] (]) 22:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
::I'm going to notice this, for people in the UK its a lot like we didn't have an article on ] and instead there was an article called "Couples Love Day". After name change there will be other follow up edits necessary. ] (]) 09:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
:::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 ] 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. ] (]) 17:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
::::I noticed the move and reversion. Looking at ] I see that is mainly about the UK night with minor mentions of other countries. In fact this article devotes more space to other countries. I would support an undisambiguated move. ], ], ] 17:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
::::I think this is such a big UK celebration that it should have its own article and namespace, so I will request a move to ], if that is OK'd I'll move the international discussion over to ]. ] (]) 09:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as per commonname. ] (]) 11:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
*'''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''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> edited at 11:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
::Bonfire Night in my neck of the woods has no bonfire, just fireworks, but its still called Bonfire Night. ] (]) 11:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:::So, you're relying on local convention in your area to dictate commonname, when there's a whole country to take into account? '''OwainDavies''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> edited at 12:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
::::And you're relying on google trends. ] (]) 12:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::Google trends is highly ephemeral. on the ] website says that "According to Google Trends, it’s most popularly known as ‘Bonfire Night’ rather than ‘Fireworks Night’ or ‘Guy Fawkes Night'." ] (]) 22:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::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''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> edited at 07:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::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. ] (]) 09:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I agree that Google trends . 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. ] (]) 09:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as overwhelmingly the common name. I have lived in several areas of Britain. Bonfire night has been its common name in all of them. I'm not sure I've ever seen it called Guy Fawkes night. Britannica is American. -- ] (]) 13:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
**Actually, ] would be best. -- ] (]) 14:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. ] (]) 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." ] (]) 18:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
* '''Support''', as I indicated above. The more general ] 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 {{green|"A night on which bonfires are lit in celebration or commemoration"}} and a specific one, labelled as chiefly British, {{green|"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. ] (]) 16:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
::That goes against ] - 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''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> edited at 07:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. ] (]) 17:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
*:Highly unlikely. Do you have evidence for that assertion, I wonder? ] (]) 17:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


* '''Oppose''' per ] - "'''Concision''' – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.". ] generally only applies when the five criteria are met. ] (]) 03:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
==Calendars==
::It would appear that you go against UK government usage, I imagine that trumps Misplaced Pages guidelines, which I think you have misapplied here anyway. ] (]) 09:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
:::@], what the UK government call it has no bearing here, they do not dictate common usage. They have various other motives for their choice of term. -- ] (]). 09:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I request the following note be placed after the first mention of 5 November:
::::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. ] (]) 17:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq|] 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). -- ] (]) 10:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:::@], 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 ] regardless. ] (]) 01:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
::::It is usual practice that ] trumps everything unless it cannot be made unambiguous or there are ] considerations. And I think there is little doubt that Bonfire Night is ''overwhelmingly'' the common name. The fact it needs a disambiguator is irrelevant. -- ] (]) 08:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
* '''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 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. ]]<small><sup><i>(])</i></sup></small> 13:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
**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. -- ] (]) 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per {{u|Ex nihil}}. This isn't just another name for 'bonfire night', it is a cultural event in parts of the UK, which often involves a celebration around a bonfire, as with ] in Denmark. -- ] (]). 13:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
**Indeed it is. And we in the UK call it bonfire night! -- ] (]) 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
::It is another name for 'Bonfire Night' and one in less common use, that is the whole point of this. ] (]) 22:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Not at all. Referring to Guy Fawkes Night as "Bonfire Night" is like rebranding Christmas as "Winterfest". -- ] (]). 22:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
::::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 ] in the UK? ] (]) 23:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::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 ] and unambiguous, the proposed name is not as it requires disambiguation. -- ] (]). 14:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
::::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. ] (]) 12:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::Misplaced Pages doesn't just cover British Usage though. -- ] (]). 14:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::But it is a British tradition. Non-British usage is irrelevant to the discussion. ] (]) 14:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
::::{{tq|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. -- ] (]) 10:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::The age of the term doesn't excuse it, and it is too vague, which the current name is not. -- ] (]). 14:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::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. -- ] (]) 14:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::If we're wanting old terms we could always revert to its orginal name of "Gunpower Treason Day" :) ] (]) 16:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' because “bonfire night” isn’t very ] and I am loathe to move it to yet another confusing “x (in sense y)” title because some people ] ] ] (]) 13:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
**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! -- ] (]) 14:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
**: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! ] (]) 13:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>


== Technically its the 5th November observance ==
&lt;ref group=nb&gt;England and the British colonies in America changed from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar in 1752; Wednesday 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday 14 September 1752. Guy Fawkes Night has been observed on 5 November whichever calendar was in effect. Dates in the article are stated in the calendar that was in effect at the time of the event, but for purposes of the article the year is always considered to begin 1 January even though the year was considered to begin 1 March in England and the colonies before 1752.&lt;/ref&gt;


The day or more importantly the is informally known as bonfire night, guy fawkes day and fireworks night. And even though the act isn’t in law the celebration of foiling the plot and preserving our system of governence is still observed ( Observance of 5th November Act 1605). Its funny how its only americans whom seem to think its guy fawkes night (do you really think we celebrate him?), i’d like to a quote from a prominent uk institution say I don’t know parliment in the actual name if the night! ] (]) 05:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:Which dates in the article are affected by the adoption of the Gregorian calendar? None? ] ] 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


:Did you see that the name was discussed in the section above? ] (]) 10:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
::Looking quickly, I see 4 November 1802. Also, there are numerous years after 1752 mentioned where it is implied the date being discussed is 5 November. In addition, many readers might not recall when the Gregorian calendar was adopted in England and might not know whether 5 November 1605 was a Gregorian or Julian date. ] (]) 17:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:02, 6 November 2024

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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
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.
Featured articleGuy Fawkes Night is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starGuy Fawkes Night is part of the Gunpowder Plot series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 5, 2017.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 26, 2010Good article nomineeListed
January 28, 2011Featured topic candidatePromoted
June 9, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 5, 2004, November 5, 2005, November 5, 2006, November 5, 2007, November 5, 2008, November 5, 2009, November 5, 2010, November 5, 2011, November 5, 2012, November 5, 2013, November 5, 2014, November 5, 2015, November 5, 2016, November 5, 2018, November 5, 2019, November 5, 2020, November 5, 2021, November 5, 2022, November 5, 2023, and November 5, 2024.
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconEngland Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHolidays Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays 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.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion: Interfaith Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
          Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

  • RM, Guy Fawkes Night → Bonfire Night, Withhdrawn, 30 July 2015, discussion
  • RM, Guy Fawkes Night → Bonfire Night in the United Kingdom, No consensus, 15 February 2023, discussion


The use of the word conspiracy.

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?

I wonder when, in which edit, the word conspiracy appeared in the description. 2A00:23C4:3997:AD00:FC74:3127:9A2B:992B (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

'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)

Julian to Gregorian date conversion

Since the gunpowder plot was listed on an old-style Julian calendar date, shouldn't a new-style Gregorian date be listed (in brackets) as well? 2401:7400:4004:35E7:52F3:F3A6:ECB2:96C0 (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

Requested move 15 February 2023

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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


Guy Fawkes NightBonfire Night in the United Kingdom – This article discusses the major UK celebration called "Bonfire Night" and per WP:COMMONNAME the article should move to its common name. A geographical identifier "in the United Kingdom" is required because a previous requested move to merge and overwrite the international page Bonfire Night was refused. Desertarun (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed the article as part of the Misplaced Pages:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2010–2015 drive and moved the article per WP:COMMONNAME. The article is plainly discussing Bonfire Night in the UK and very few in the UK use Guy Fawkes Night to describe the celebration. Desertarun (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Desertarun, 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)
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)
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)
I noticed the move and reversion. Looking at Bonfire Night I see that is mainly about the UK night with minor mentions of other countries. In fact this article devotes more space to other countries. I would support an undisambiguated move. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I think this is such a big UK celebration that it should have its own article and namespace, so I will request a move to Bonfire Night in the United Kingdom, if that is OK'd I'll move the international discussion over to Bonfire Night. Desertarun (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support as per commonname. Desertarun (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • 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 (talk) edited at 11:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Bonfire Night in my neck of the woods has no bonfire, just fireworks, but its still called Bonfire Night. Desertarun (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
So, you're relying on local convention in your area to dictate commonname, when there's a whole country to take into account? OwainDavies (talk) edited at 12:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
And you're relying on google trends. Desertarun (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Google trends is highly ephemeral. This current page on the English Heritage website says that "According to Google Trends, it’s most popularly known as ‘Bonfire Night’ rather than ‘Fireworks Night’ or ‘Guy Fawkes Night'." MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
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 (talk) edited at 07:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • Support as overwhelmingly the common name. I have lived in several areas of Britain. Bonfire night has been its common name in all of them. I'm not sure I've ever seen it called Guy Fawkes night. English Heritage does not call it Guy Fawkes Night. Britannica is American. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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 (talk) edited at 07:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
It would appear that you go against UK government usage, I imagine that trumps Misplaced Pages guidelines, which I think you have misapplied here anyway. Urselius (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@Urselius, what the UK government call it has no bearing here, they do not dictate common usage. They have various other motives for their choice of term. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
  • 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. Ex nihil 13:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
    • 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)
  • Oppose per Ex nihil. This isn't just another name for 'bonfire night', it is a cultural event in parts of the UK, which often involves a celebration around a bonfire, as with Sankthansaften in Denmark. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
It is another name for 'Bonfire Night' and one in less common use, that is the whole point of this. Urselius (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Not at all. Referring to Guy Fawkes Night as "Bonfire Night" is like rebranding Christmas as "Winterfest". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Misplaced Pages doesn't just cover British Usage though. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
But it is a British tradition. Non-British usage is irrelevant to the discussion. Urselius (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
The age of the term doesn't excuse it, and it is too vague, which the current name is not. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
If we're wanting old terms we could always revert to its orginal name of "Gunpower Treason Day" :) MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
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.

Technically its the 5th November observance

The day or more importantly the is informally known as bonfire night, guy fawkes day and fireworks night. And even though the act isn’t in law the celebration of foiling the plot and preserving our system of governence is still observed ( Observance of 5th November Act 1605). Its funny how its only americans whom seem to think its guy fawkes night (do you really think we celebrate him?), i’d like to a quote from a prominent uk institution say I don’t know parliment in the actual name if the night! 82.28.45.231 (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you see that the name was discussed in the section above? MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories: