Talk:Sir Henry Tichborne
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sir Henry Tichborne 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 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Pro-English language
editThis article is written from the English perspective, apparently largely drawn from the highly biased Dictionary of National Biography of 1885-1900. Fighting on the side of the English Royalists or Parliamentarians is presented as heroic, and his role in the conquest, colonization, and pacification of the Irish is downplayed. I have made a few edits to try to make the article more balanced, but it would be good to get some Irish sources to make it more WP:NPOV. --Macrakis (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello- My own contributions are certainly not written from ann English point of view (I'm not English!). Whether "heroic" or not, the side you choose and whether you win or lose, are facts like any other, Of course some Irish sources would be useful. Chrisdoyleorwell (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
First stab at tryng to put the oppposite point of view. There is certainly a lot to be said against him. Chrisdoyleorwell (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Change of citation style
editDear User:Chrisdoyleorwell, dear User:Macrakis, I propose to change the article's citation style from the quite informal <ref>free-formatted descriptive text</ref> to short citations in the text with a source list below giving long descriptions. Both would use templates to ensure completeness and uniformity. {{Sfn}} for the inline citation and {{Cite book}} (and similar) for the source list. As prescribed in WP:CITEVAR I ask you as the foremost contributors for approval. Please allow this. With many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC) Yes I agree Chrisdoyleorwell (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- I can't get very excited about changing the citation style when the substance of the citations is such a mess. The current footnote 5 is some sort of hybrid between free-form and structured reference. Footnote 7 is incomplete (maybe it just needs an s.v., but that's unclear). Footnote 8 is grossly incomplete. Footnote 9 is basically just a URL with no bibliographic info. etc etc.
- Just pouring the current bad references into sfn and cite book templates won't improve anything. Someone has to actually do the bibliographic work to verify and complete these references.
- The other problem with cite book and the like is that they are hard to use for anything but the most straightforward cases.
- So... if we first clean up the existing references, verifying them and making them complete, then I don't care whether the article uses the current format or the sfn + cite xxx templates. But if we don't, we're just putting lipstick on a pig. --Macrakis (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, just wow! Thanks, @Johannes Schade:, for your work on the citations! No longer a pig! --Macrakis (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)