Talk:List of regicides of Charles I

Active discussions
List of regicides of Charles I is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on October 7, 2016.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 6, 2016Featured list candidatePromoted
August 24, 2017Featured list removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured list

UntitledEdit

I moved this page because it was going to have to be moved anyway (the capitalisation was wrong) and I thought this might be a bit more neutral. No objection to categories or the other language. DJ Clayworth 19:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of signatories to the death warrant of Charles IEdit

(written without seeing the above) Thanks for moving this article from underneath me - I thought the article name was already long enough as List of regicides, etc., but now it is even longer.

You'll note that the article contains, or was intended to contain, a section with details of associates who were prosecuted as Regicides even though they were not signatories. As such, the new name is inappropriate. Please revisit the article and remove this section.

Also, this article is filed in categ Regicide under Charles I. If you read the category description, you'll notice that the current scope of the category is Charles I - as such this article is a major article in the category as currently defined. Please revisit the category and adjust its scope. Thanks, Ian Cairns 19:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ian

Sorry about that, List of signatories to the death warrant of Charles I seemed like an appropriate title based on the content I saw. If you are going to expand beyond the signatories feel free to move this elsewhere. You can do it yourself - use the 'move' button, usually at the top of the page. I suggest List of regicides of Charles I. DJ Clayworth 19:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DJC - Thanks. As a sysop, I'm fully aware of the Move function. With the skin I'm using, there are no buttons at top or elsewhere. My comments still stand. Regards, Ian Cairns 23:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have no objection to any of the changes you suggest. And no sarcasm intended about the 'move' function - I didn't look to see how many contributions you had made. DJ Clayworth 23:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguity relating to Hewlett sentencingEdit

Minor ambiguity - in the sentencing section. William Hewlett is stated as "Found guilty of regicide at the same trial as Daniel Axtel, but not executed with him." - does that mean he wasnt executed or executed separately to Axtel? THanks

CitationsEdit

From the history of the artile:

"23:19, 27 April 2016‎ SchroCat (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (63,980 bytes) (+13,531)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by PBS (talk): You purport to be an admin: behave like one and stop edit warring. You are introducing errors in these edits. "

What errors? -- PBS (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

One broken ref and several incorrect dois. Aside from that there is absolutely no need for you to have changed them in the first place. – SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Which reference is broken and if it is why not fix it? Which incorrect dois? The reason for changing is that the references are inconsistent as they are at the moment. -- PBS (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I have fixed it: I put it back to the version that's not broken and shouldn't have been dicked around with. – SchroCat (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Which reference was broken? -- PBS (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
One that is now fixed. Again, there was no need for you to have changed these in the first place. – SchroCat (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
You have made three reverts. I have made two. I am asking you in good faith what do you think was the broken reference? -- PBS (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
What does the number of reverts matter? Does that mean you are planning to revert again? Why did you unnecessarily change the format in the first place? – SchroCat (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
To answer your question as to the reason. At the moment the inline citations are a mixture of long and short I homogenised them all to short. The dedicated citation template {{cite ODNB}} removes lots of clutter (it also fixes mismatches between urls and dois). Now please answer my questions. You have stated that one of the references was broken. Which one? you have stated that some of the dois were incorrect which ones? -- 23:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
So no real need then. Nothing that aids readers or editors? I think this has reached the end of any constructive usefulness, and I note, somewhat depressingly, you didn't answer my question as to whether you intend to revert again to the flawed version. – SchroCat (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I have yet to decide. The error in the citation was the UNESCO one, not sure how that one was missed out, as it was the only one that needed a custom {{SfnRef}}. What were the errors in the DOIs? -- PBS (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Try and behave like an admin, for fecks sake: to revert to something based on nothing but your personal choice is mind boggling. Still, thanks for confirming you wish to continue edit warring: that always goes down well at ANI. Your breaking of various citations was not the only backward step: why you felt the need to remove the sub-sections for notes/references/sources I really couldn't imagine, let alone removing the columns for references. Why, for goodness sake? – SchroCat (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask: have you ever taken an article through FAC or (as I intend to with this one) FLC? – SchroCat (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

FAC is of little interest to me as I believe the process is broken in many ways, but that is an issue for another place.
My choice of Appendix headings is standard used in WP:CITE as examples, and the wording at WP:Layout and las but not least it is a return to what they have been in this article for many years: see for example this version from 19 March 2015, this version Aughst 2010 and this version October 2005. Indeed it remained the same until you changed it on the 111th of this month. So why did you want to add another heading and place a double column in the references section? -- PBS (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, your lack experience and knowledge of high-quality content is evident. The structure was improved along with everything else in the article. It was utterly sub-standard before, with poor, insufficient referencing that was inconsistent. The text was woeful, the images lacking. Why you think it is a good idea to take a backwards step on any of the improvements is bizarre. There are two people who are very active in source and citation reviewing (they have reviewed a number of articles I've taken through FAC, Nikkimaria and Crisco 1492. I'd like to get their opinion on your changes. – SchroCat (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

PBS, You are a disgraceful editor: why on earth are you continue to edit war, despite the open thread on these points. As an admin you should be aware of WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Do you just ignore them on your own whim? Give one good reason for the changes to the structure of the bottom, apart from "it's been like that for a while"? Fuck me, it's that sort of mindset that makes me wonder how on earth we actually develop and improve things round here. Should we delete the additional citations, text and all the rest, back to the clusterfuck it was when it was your pet article? - SchroCat (talk)

As I said above User:SchroCat your first sentence could just as easily be reversed. However I would never make such comments to an editor with whom I am having a discussion about content because it is not conducive to editors reaching agreement.
  • Do you make such statements to deliberately provoke the other editor?
  • Do you make such statements and think that they will improve the likely hood of furthering the outcome of an agreement on content?
  • Do you make such statements thoughtlessly?
  • Do you ever apologise for making such statements as they assuming bad faith?
-- PBS (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Given your stated intent to continue to edit war, despite the open thread, I stand by what I said. To revert to sub-standard version on no other basis than "it was like that before" is a distinctly poor approach to editing. Your revert to the previous format didn't take into account the change of structure in the article, or the sub-standard state it was in the first place, or the inadequate names used in the section headings. I have little interest in furthering discussions with those who are so obstructive in their approach, and who cover that obstructionism with such scant justification. – SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

From the history of the article:

@user:Dr. Blofeld did you read this talk page before reverting my edit? If so why the comment. As I had been discussing changes on the talk page and unlike User:SchroCat I did not simply revert reverts but each time made new edits or modified the edits made I had previously in light of the conversation on this talk page. This can be seen easily by comparing the comments in the history and the differences in the edits

  • Diff between "Revision as of 21:19, 27 April 2016 (edit) SchroCat" and "Latest revision as of 07:07, 28 April 2016 ... Dr. Blofeld" (no difference).
  • Diff between my major change Revision as of 23:07, 27 April 2016 and my last change of Revision as of 06:25, 28 April 2016

So please explain your comment "Discuss this on the talk page without warring....". -- PBS (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


@user:Dr. Blofeld before 07:07, 28 April 2016 you had never edited this article, or its talk page, so how did you become aware of the disagreement between myself and SchroCat over the content of this article? Did you look at the content of my edit, if so what are your objections to the content of the edit I made that you reverted? -- PBS (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I was asked to give my opinion as a disinterested third party, though I will not discuss the section headings, as I am unfamiliar with British terminology related to this matter. I believe WP:CITEVAR supports maintaining the citation style implemented by SchroCat during his rewrite of the article. The previous version could not be said to be consistent (there's a mix of SFN and long form for books, and the formatting of the LF citations is all over the place). SchroCat's update introduced a consistent SFN for books, LF for web references variant of citation. Though I personally prefer SFN throughout, I recognize that community consensus (at shown through reviews of such FAs as Great Stink, Terry-Thomas, and Albert Ketèlbey, as well as reviews of such FLs as List of works by Leslie Charteris, Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom, and Works of Keith Floyd) has considered this a consistent citation style within the demands of WP:CITEVAR. As such, any proposed changes to citation styles (i.e. standardizing all references as SFN) should have had consensus beforehand. I should hope that both parties can discuss the question of "SFN for books" vs "all SFN" civilly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chris Woodrich "I believe WP:CITEVAR supports maintaining the citation style implemented by SchroCat during his rewrite of the article". I think you are wrong because the style introduced by SchroCat is not consistent. What is it in the last edit I made that is not further homogenising the citations into one style (diff)? Also of all the edit I have made recently which one do you think goes against your suggestion? -- PBS (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it may be time to drop the stick PBS. This is beyond anything constructive that I can see, or most other people, I suspect. – SchroCat (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes PBS, boor off and go and do something constructive with your time. CassiantoTalk 19:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @PBS: As I specifically pointed out, there has been consensus at previous featured content reviews that "SFN for books, long form for web" is consistent. Otherwise those articles, and the dozen + others that use the same referencing style, would never have been promoted. If you believe so strongly that it is not consistent, then you should bring it up elsewhere; consensus building regarding a relatively common form of reference formatting should be made in a more visible place than "Talk:List of regicides of Charles I".
Schro and Cass: Guys, that's not helping. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is the one under discussion, so this is the appropriate place to discuss changes to this article. The distinction you are making between web and books are completely artificial and do not meet the requirements of citation guideline's definition of style. For example your argument could just as easily be taken to mean that as the ODNB is online it is a web entry, and are you suggesting that if Kirby's paper is no longer accessible on line the entry should be moved from being a long inline citation into a short citation? -- PBS (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing in CITEVAR that debars the format we have here. If so, please quote the relevant wording of the guideline. CITESTYLE says to "follow a consistent style", which is what we have here. I,also have to agree with Crisco that if you want to amend the citation style to bar use of the format we have here, which will affect numerous articles (hundreds? Thousands?) this one small backwater of the project is not the place to be so increasingly disruptive. – SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Most citation styles draw some kind of distinction between web and book references; this "artificial" idea is nothing new, and nothing that contravenes CITE so long as it is done consistently. I agree with Crisco's remarks above; if you want to argue that this format is not acceptable, you will need to do it in a broader forum, because it isn't unique to this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you really consider that you are a non-biased commentator here Nikkimaria? -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Given the OWN behaviour you've exhibited about this page, pbs, do you really consider that you are a non-biased commentator here? – SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I would point out to you that WP:OWN states "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect". To date since you staerted to edit this article, I have made some edits which you have reverted. Other than to revert your reverts I have not reverted any of the changes which you made to the article and I have been altering my edits as we have been discussing things on the talk page. Do you consider that the following taken from WP:OWN applies to all editors?
Extended content
Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.
Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states:

Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone

Similarly, by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them.
-- PBS (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Give your attempt to bully Cassianto out of the argument for him only having made one comment and you having been active on this page for eleven years, yes, I fully believe that this continued (and increasingly tendentious) thread is because you have feelings of OWNership. You are not acting in any rationally constructive manner in prolonging this discussion when the consensus is against you. You have behaved disgracefully at many points, well below the standards considered normal for an admin. – SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll also point out that your claim that "I have not reverted any of the changes which you made to the article" isn't entirely truthful, given your ridiculous attempts to edit war on bizzare points (the edit summary of "Section headers back to what they were for the bast part of a decade") points to both the truth of that, and if one of the 'examples of OWN behaviour' on WP:OWN. – SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
OK lets agree to differ of what is usually meant by a revert, as it will not help build a consensus. So let us get back to the content issues. -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep. I was invited here as a source reviewer, and from that perspective my answer would be the same no matter who was arguing what side - the format used in the article is compatible with CITE, and anyone who thinks it shouldn't be should raise the issue in a broader venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You were not invited here by a source reviewer, by a party who has been adding text to an article and from their accusations of ownership clearly perceive themselves to be in a dispute with another editor. As you and I still not resolved our own positions for what is best for different article do you really think that that your comments are likely to help resolve the perceived dispute? -- PBS (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
"You were not invited here by a source reviewer" - which is why I said as, not by. I'm here to comment, as someone who has never edited the article but who has experience reviewing sources, on a disagreement regarding source formatting, and in my opinion the position you've taken is wrong regardless of who holds that position. The fact that we disagreed about something completely unrelated over a year ago has no bearing on that determination. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
My mistake. -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Precisely. PBS, you are saying that "the style introduced by SchroCat is not consistent" despite evidence (put forth by both myself and Schro) that it has been accepted elsewhere as a consistent citation style, in line with WP:CITEVAR—despite your disdain for the FA and FL processes, an article succeeding in a venue where a stray full stop is noticed and commented upon clearly has an implicit consensus regarding the consistency of its citation style. As such, your statement that "the style introduced by SchroCat is not consistent" goes far beyond the scope of "is X citation style appropriate in the article List of regicides of Charles I?". If consensus were to agree with you, it would impact dozens, if not hundreds, of articles, and overturn dozens, if not hundreds, of local consensuses. As such, any discussion about the inherent consistency or inconsistency of a particular citation style should be focused in a more central area. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Just because an irregular format is used in other articles does not mean it is binding across all articles. @Chris Woodrich: Let us examine this further I stated "For example your argument could just as easily be taken to mean that as the ODNB is online it is a web entry, and are you suggesting that if Kirby's paper is no longer accessible on line the entry should be moved from being a long inline citation into a short citation?" have you an an answer? If so what is it? -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The answer, still, is that this is not the right place for this particular discussion, which has much wider implications than this one article. – SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The correct place to discuss changes to an article is on the article's talk page. "The answer, ..." If that is so then how do you explain the sentence in the lead of the MOS that states "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia."? -- PBS (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
So far three experienced editors are saying the opposite. At what point are you going to start listening to the advice to seek a wider consensus? – SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
What is your metric for "experienced editors"? Is the MOS guidance not a wider consensus? -- PBS (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary breakEdit

The MoS guidance is what is under discussion. You, an experienced editor, are interpreting it one way, three experienced editors are interpreting it another. The consensus on this page is against you. If you wish to get a different view on how the MoS guidance should be interpreted, the have a central discussion. This is another point on which three editors are in agreement and you are in dispute. – SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You should not put this forward for any good or featured article status until the artilce is stable. At the the momentthe only reasons I have not reverted your reverts is because I think it necessary to reach a consensus on the talk page, which at the moment does not exist. -- PBS (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a consensus, it's just that you don't like it. See the comments from Nikkimaria and Crisco 1492 and from me. There is the consensus, and stability exists. If you want to make a meal of this, do so centrally, not here, as your comments are nothing but WP:tendentious and WP:disruptive. It's time for you to drop the stick and be 'constructive' elsewhere. And an oppose at the FLC because you are trying to make it unstable? That's about par for the course here, unfortunately. SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree here with PBS. In order to move forward we need the article to be stable which it's not. Furthermore it's important to have a true consensus which we do not seem to have here. Caden cool 05:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Seriously Caden? You are trying to stir things up now? This article is a long way from your comfort zone, and I wonder how you came to find this discussion. This is not a constructive move on your part. – SchroCat (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What, pray tell, is "true consensus"? For close to two months now there was a clear consensus: four editors (SchroCat, Dr Blofeld, Cassianto, and myself) supporting the use the disputed citation method in this article, one editor (Nikkimaria) stating that the citation style used here is consistent (and thus protected by WP:CITEVAR), and one editor (PBS) who considers the citation method used inappropriate and inconsistent. There is a consensus for this page. That PBS has not dropped the stick is worrisome. That PBS has disrupted the FLC process is even worse. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Crisco 1492 are you seriously suggesting that an list should be promoted when there are clearly issues that are not supported by the reliable sources that are used to support the text. Using just the first example in the section "non-regicides" (as it was when you wrote your comment on the 4th) we have the inline cited source (ODNB) stating in the fist sentence that the man was a regicide. Finally after days of obstruction SchroCat has on 5 July changed the section header to "Commissioners who did not sign" with a editorial comment of "Non-regicides: ending the tendentious idiocy". -- PBS (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
We can now move onto the next section header which is also inaccurate. -- PBS (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Time for you to move on to somewhere else PBS. – SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Schrocat. PBS, your WP:OWN issues with this article are not befitting an admin. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@User talk:Crisco 1492 Which issues do you think I WP:OWN? -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think you own issues. I think you have WP:OWN issues. Why I think that should be patently clear when consensus has been consistently against you (including the recent FLC), and yet you hammer away to "protect" (i.e. maintain in a relatively poor state) the project you've been working on inconsistently over ten years. If you think Schro's citation style is inconsistent, despite the numerous people who have expressed a different opinion, then go start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Otherwise, drop the stick. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Matthew ThomlinsonEdit

Matthew Thomlinson rightly appears in two different places, but a casual observer might not realise that this is the same individual - might it be worth doing something to denote that this is the same person, particularly as the notes sections do not exactly match? Dunarc (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted User:Dunarc. As he never sat as a commissioner, I have removed his name from that list, but I have added to the notes that he was appointed as one in the other entry. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks PBS. Dunarc (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Return to "List of regicides of Charles I" page.