Talk:Wars of the Roses

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi Otters, apologies for the late response, but I haven't been monitoring this talk page all that often. No, there didn't end up being a discussion; I'd waited about 19 days and there hadn't been any input, so I decided to be WP:BOLD and make the change myself. In regards to the original picture: I didn't think a 20th century painting of a fictional scene was best suited for the lead image, and whilst a good artistic representation, not a very accurate or realistic one, and not a good thing to have in a fact-based encyclopaedia. On the whole, I'm not too picky about its replacement; we could choose a painting of a battle, or a picture of just one of the kings, or just the two rose symbols; I'm not bothered. But what I would say is that we definitely should remove, or at least move down the previous image. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Just seen this - we certainly need something better. Multiple images should be avoided wherever possible, and especially crushed into infoboxes. A near-contemporary battle pic would would be better there are a few of these. In fact there should be more in the article generally. The 3 from the Commons Category:Histoire de la rentrée victorieuse du roi Edouard IV (1471) - UGent HS236 seem to date from 1471. The illustrationsd throughout the article don't seem to have been looked at for years. Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• @Tim O'Doherty:, @Johnbod: I'm going to have to agree with you both here. A contemporary or near-contemporary depiction of one of the battles does sound like the best option. Otters B. Bothers (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Putting forward some potential candidates here:

• 
  Battle of Tewkesbury
• 
  White Rose of York and Red Rose of Lancaster
• 
  Battle of Barnet
• 
  Battle of Bosworth Field (non contemporary)

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Out of the ones you have suggested, I am supportive of either the image of the Battle of Tewkesbury or of the Battle of Bosworth Field. The former is very bright and clear, with little clutter, very fitting for a lead image and of course is of one of the most significant battles of the war. The latter, while non contemporary, is one of the most iconic depictions of the war and is of arguably its most famous and significant battle. Otters B. Bothers (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Otters B. Bothers: Just temporarily changed the lead image until we get further input on this; what do you think? I think the current one actually isn't too bad. Looks pleasant enough. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Some war articles, such as the Hundred Years' War and Thirty Years' War, use one file that is a collage of other images, could the same be done here with the four monarchs or battle scenes? If using a single image then one from the Ghent manuscript seems the best option - and as Tewkesbury is already used elsewhere in the article my preference would be for Barnet. EdwardUK (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This is where we came it, with a 5-monarch collage. Personally I loathe collages, especially in infoboxes, where they are too small; it seems others agree. This article is generally under-illustrated, so the common excuse of lack of space doesn't apply. I don't much like the roses either - they are better below, with explanations as to which is which. I think a battle scene from the Ghent manuscript is best - we should just use the best one, & then use the other lower down. I have a mild preference for Tewkesbury. There are also rather better later images than the ones we are now using, which could be spread around. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, done. Tewkesbury it is. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Battle

This article started with a long description of one of the many battles in this war. I removed this content so that the aritcle now starts with the expected text consisely explaining what the "War of the Roses" was. Nick Beeson (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately you didn't revert far back enough - nor did User:Adakiko before you. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod and Nwbeeson: Thanks for catching that! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)