This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christianliturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scottish Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Scottish RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyScottish royalty
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
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.
I'm wondering if the section on the Five Members should be summerised more and then linked to the article Five Members which should have all the details? Currently, I do not any such link. Jp2207 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Celia Homeford, indeed there is already a link. Thanks for spotting that. But don't you think it is better to have the link to the main article as I did it and remove the other in-line link? This is common practice in the rest of the article where sections have their own page (Bishops' Wars, Irish Rebellion, Long Parliament). My thinking is that such sections should be broad summaries only, or relating to Charles part played in them obviously, and otherwise avoid details best left in their own articles. Thoughts? Jp2207 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay, re my change may I suggest that the inclusion of the names is superfluous to an article on the life of Charles I? The Five Members article can be easily followed by anyone who cares to find them. I left in Pym as he was the clear leader of the parliamentary opposition to Charles at the time, as referenced several times in the prior section. But I will grant that my first effort is a bit clumsy. How about keeping it simple?:
“On 3 January 1642, Charles directed Parliament to give up five specific members of the Commons - Pym included - on the grounds of high treason.”
@DrKay Simplicity is lost. And I explained why Pym is mentioned. Anyway, it was just a suggestion based on the existence of a whole article on the 5 members topic to avoid duplication. I can easily live with it as is. Jp2207 (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose and WP:SNOW close. It is well-established on Wikipedia that, where someone was a monarch of multiple countries, their title is that of the most important country. The same applies to move requests on his sons Charles II and James II/VII. PatGallacher (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
so, i'd like to change Elizabeth Stuart's birthday day, because you put "29th" december while she was born on the 28th. My sources are the wikipedia articles about Elizabeth Stuart.
Thanks again Amy2010ben (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti, I likewise get your impulse here, but in these two cases I really think you're missing the unproblematic meaning actually being communicated. We would not feel concerned about editorializing if we said Charles suffered a setback, or that his army was defeated, etc. There is nothing actually subjective here. Remsense ‥ 论22:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate your thoughts here, but "unfortunately" is a subjective position we should not be taking. We should avoid inserting any sort of language that suggests an event was definitively good or bad beyond an objective measure, as Wikipedia should not take such stances. A reader can be trusted to interpret the statements on their own. As it stands, the MOS seems pretty clear on the matter, and I think we should follow it until a consensus (either implicit or explicit) overturns it. Thanks for opening this discussion; please ping if you reply, as I have my fingers in a few pies right now and my watchlist is annoyingly crowded. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Crucially, I do feel there is a clear distinction between saying an event was unfortunate—meaning, disadvantageous, ruinous, unexpected, etc.—generally versus observing that an event was unfortunate for one person's life and times. The latter seems a matter of plainly reproducing what sources say, where the former is indeed potentially a subjective value judgment we can't make in wikivoice. The MOS makes clear these are "words to watch" and this seems to me like such a situation that the guideline stresses such words may be perfectly acceptable to use.
This may be one of those cases where the small indivisible remainder consists of the shades of lexical value in words—that's how it goes sometimes, and I just wanted to make my case clearer pending what anyone else thought—if no one else finds it a loss then there's no need to argue it further. No biggie. Remsense ‥ 论23:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Should my change stand without anyone agreeing for a few days more, I think BRD might dictate we revert to the verbiage prior to my changes. Thanks for being willing to engage in this! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)