www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Jump to content

Talk:Wars of the Roses: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Wars of the Roses/Archive 1) (bot
Line 86: Line 86:


The current lead image (a 20th century painting of a [[Shakespeare]] play), whilst nice, is probably more fitting for ''[[Henry VI, Part 1]]'' than it is for a series of very real wars that took place in the 15th century. We could go for a depiction of any of the battles instead, or the collage of images that I have put forward, which are pictures of the four kings most involved in the fighting. Thoughts? [[User:Tim O'Doherty|Tim O'Doherty]] ([[User talk:Tim O'Doherty|talk]]) 22:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The current lead image (a 20th century painting of a [[Shakespeare]] play), whilst nice, is probably more fitting for ''[[Henry VI, Part 1]]'' than it is for a series of very real wars that took place in the 15th century. We could go for a depiction of any of the battles instead, or the collage of images that I have put forward, which are pictures of the four kings most involved in the fighting. Thoughts? [[User:Tim O'Doherty|Tim O'Doherty]] ([[User talk:Tim O'Doherty|talk]]) 22:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi Tim. Did there end up being a discussion on this? While I don't have a problem with the new image (which is consistent with many other lead images on medieval/early modern warfare articles), I do think that the original worked very well as a symbolic representation of the conflict - capturing the essence of the conflict as a contest between two families and instantly evoking (and explaining) the name of the war itself (in spite of the fact that the actual scene is fictional of course). I'd prefer the original, but I'm all for further discussion. [[User:Otters B. Bothers|Otters B. Bothers]] ([[User talk:Otters B. Bothers|talk]]) 06:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:28, 19 March 2023

Former good article nomineeWars of the Roses was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 18, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 22, 2005, May 22, 2006, and May 22, 2007.

Template:Vital article

The name.

The article still doesn’t say what this war (these battles) were called just prior to being called The Wars of the Roses.

Were they still called The Civil War, until the "Great Rebellion" became The Civil War?

In 1814 (Walter Scott)?

After 1911? English Civil War#Terminology

Any validity for "Cousin's War"?

MBG02 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To (kind of) answer my own question…
Archives says Cousins’ War probably arose with the novels of Philipa Gregory.
The first use by Philippa Gregory (that I can see), is in The White Queen (2009). Google says Kevin P Phillips published The Cousins' Wars (1999).
The same post has a link which fails (for me), but Google can get it: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/the-myth-of-the-cousins-war-a-guest-post-by-leanda-de-lisle/ .
That blog says the term Wars of the Roses can be dated to David Hume (I guess c1762). The blog, and this article, mention Shakespeare's roses (implying the name could be older).
MBG02 (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Leadership in the Wars of the Roses requires attention

Draft:Leadership in the Wars of the Roses exists for a long time. At AfC review it was suggested that before splitting it should be discussed here. Though the main author lost interest in the article (I think so, maybe I'm wrong), the article looks well-sourced. Would be great if somebody would look / accept / comment on it. Artem.G (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

note re article revisions

I made a few revisions. just two or three. or maybe more. hope everyone finds them helpful. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

From top; left to right: Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII

The current lead image (a 20th century painting of a Shakespeare play), whilst nice, is probably more fitting for Henry VI, Part 1 than it is for a series of very real wars that took place in the 15th century. We could go for a depiction of any of the battles instead, or the collage of images that I have put forward, which are pictures of the four kings most involved in the fighting. Thoughts? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim. Did there end up being a discussion on this? While I don't have a problem with the new image (which is consistent with many other lead images on medieval/early modern warfare articles), I do think that the original worked very well as a symbolic representation of the conflict - capturing the essence of the conflict as a contest between two families and instantly evoking (and explaining) the name of the war itself (in spite of the fact that the actual scene is fictional of course). I'd prefer the original, but I'm all for further discussion. Otters B. Bothers (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]