Talk:Guy Fawkes Night

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Guy Fawkes Night is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Guy Fawkes Night is part of the Gunpowder Plot series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject England (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.

This article needs an infobox[edit]

This article is in dire need of an infobox. It goes to show that Corbett OWNS this article and that Cassianto stands by with his pitchfork when Corbett is not available. I'm surprised at an admin (Bencherlite) getting involved and going against community consensus. Millions of articles have a infobox and THAT is a consensus. (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't own any articles, but then neither do you. Have you explained yet why you believe this article to be in "dire need" of an infobox? Eric Corbett 15:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

An infobox should be used to allow a casual reader to gain facts without having to read the boring text. "Your" article should have one. This needs an infobox!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like reading the "boring text", perhaps a text-based encyclopedia is not for you, then. Infoboxes have their uses - I have used them on many of the articles that I have started, but not all of them - but yours is among the weakest arguments for an infobox I have seen. Quite obviously there is no "community consensus" for including infoboxes on every article, otherwise the Arbcom infoboxes case would have been decided rather differently. The last discussion relating to this article was here, by the way. Have you got any new points to add apart from a dislike of "boring text"? BencherliteTalk 16:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • So here's how such an infobox might appear, using the infobox holiday template (although 5 November isn't a holiday). Basically it repeats a tiny amount of information already available in the lead. Personally I think it would look stupid, so my vote is still no. Parrot of Doom 17:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Guy Fawkes Night
Windsor castle guyfawkesnight1776.jpg
Festivities in Windsor Castle by Paul Sandby, c. 1776
Observed by United Kingdom
Significance Commemoration of the failure of the Gunpowder Plot
Celebrations Bonfires, Fireworks
Date 5 November
Next time 5 November 2015 (2015-11-05)
Duration one day
Frequency annual
  • I have often thought about putting an infobox here- then realised it was time to rest. Do we have a Infobox for Religious Hatred, or do we have one for Famous miscarriages of Justice or just an Infobox for Hospital admittances for skin grafts? You can forget-Infobox holiday- when I have never been given a day off work? This sickly sweet Disneyfication of 300 years history is not what Wikipedia is about. Please take personal abuse to another page- for instance, you own user page.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • If Groundhog Day gets an infobox, then Guy Fawkes Night is certainly deserving.Cantab12 (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That's no rationale for inclusion (thankfully). We have WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to ensure slippery slopes aren't introduced. There is nothing in an IB that isn in the lead, and most of that is in the first sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous' activities in relation to GFN[edit]


Hyperlink please[edit]

Hyperlink Firework Code please. Firework bob (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Gaijin42 (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. A total waste of your time and mine, clearly, but thank you, nonetheless. Firework bob (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Drmies Would PC be a viable option here rather than semi? That would let editors such as bob make some efforts without impacting the site for general readership, and its easy to approve/reject the changes. Then we could move up to semi if/when the actual vandals come and play? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Gaijin, I am not the biggest fan of PC. I am just concerned with these few days, after which protection will expire. If another admin wants to change semi to PC, I got no quarrel with that. And I do not believe that such requests are a total waste of time, but that's just me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what PC is, but somehow I doubt it would be easy at all - it's taken over an hour just to get a hyperlink added (and I cannot believe I actually had to make it a specific request before it was done). Now apparently I have to find another noticeboard because somehow me complaining here that the preemptive protection on this article was preventing me from improving the article, is somehow not related in any way to improving this article? It would probably be quicker for me to just write an accurate and up to date Fireworks in the United Kingdom article (another article which I can't believe doesn't even exist in 2014 - although its likely content is at least duplicated in places) and just ask for another hyperlink from here. Firework bob (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  • As was explained before, this is an article with a long history of vandalism just around this date. In addition, it's a Featured Article, which means it's really good and we like to keep it that way. So I apologize for this minor inconvenience, but that's the way it is. It will take you three minutes to post a notice at WP:AN, and not much longer to get an answer. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I was already drafting a complaint at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, now filed, and it took a damn sight longer than 3 minutes. I know exactly what was explained before, I was hoping that instead of it being repeated by you, you would actually answer the points I raised about the policy. As you will see there, I've mentioned all the pertinent facts, again. But thanks for dismissing all this as a minor inconvenience. I'm so glad my time is of such little importance to you. It took me less time to research and write the whole Firework Code article than it has to deal with this, and I sense I'm not even half way through it yet. Firework bob (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


To add Parkin to the See Also section. Parkin, like Bonfire toffee, is almost exclusively consumed as part of the Guy Fawkes festivities - and thus relevant to the article. I've tried to add it but other users have removed it. Cantab12 (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think it's relevant to the article? Eric Corbett 23:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
In northern England, eating Parkin is part of the Guy Fawkes Night festivities [1][2][3] Cantab12 (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Cantab12, I refer you to my earlier statement that in the UK, in general, beer and hotdogs is also a favoured delicacy with many consuming these during firework displays up and down the country. Maybe we should also add that too? If not, why should we add something only northerners eat? What makes this relevant to this article? Cassiantotalk 22:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The point that Cantab12 is making is that according to the Wikipedia article on Parkin, Parking is primarily eaten as part of Guy Fawkes Night celebrations. Beer and hotdogs are consumed at other events as well, and in parts of London the consumption of beer at public Guy Fawkes Night celebrations is banned (obviously news to you) -- for example Southwark advertise their event with the Conditions of entry "No Fireworks, No Alcohol, No Dogs, No Bikes, No Glass, No Weapons".[1] -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
This all goes back to previous discussions - see the archives - on the relationship between this article and the separate one on Bonfire Night - in which parkin is mentioned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks PBS for the patronising "news to you" remark, but you are missing the point. What makes this important enough for it to be included in this article? At the end of the day, this is just a type of food and I don't see it as an integral part of the article. Cassiantotalk 16:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It was not intended as a patronising statement, but thanks for the thanks. You write "I don't see it as an integral part of the article", that is the reason for adding it to "see also" section of the article per the guideline WP:SEEALSO "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic". This is not a comprehensive article as it need further development to include the history in of the celebrations in other countries, and a comprehensive section on the modern celebration around the globe. -- PBS (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, It must've been comprehensive enough for it have gained a supporting consensus at FAC; coincidentally, I see that you pooh-poohed the article there too, so maybe you have an axe to grind. IMHO, it is not good to overload the "see also" section with factoids. We have to draw the line somewhere. Cassiantotalk 19:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The initial FAC request was made when the page was not stable (have look at the edit process in the months leading up to the FAC review). Wikipedia:Featured article criteria explicitly states "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day". That is a fact, whether the other criteria (including completeness) were met is a matter of opinion. "We have to draw the line somewhere." what are you objective criteria for where that line should be drawn? -- PBS (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Here looks like a good place to start. If we don't, and like PoD predicts, in a few weeks, we will have "Music Played on Guy Fawkes Night"; "Clothing Worn on Guy Fawkes Night"; and, "Things to Burn on Bonfires during Guy Fawkes Night". Cassiantotalk 05:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Cooked every year in our family since at least 1950
@User:Cassianto. Its a pity you raised this the 7th November, as you would have been most welcome to have joined me on the 3th, and could have seen me making 7lbs of Lancashire Parkin in preparation for the Guy Fawkes celebratiuons on the 5th. You would have noticed that I was using a traditional recipe dating back to before 1917, sourced in Ashton-upon-Mersey, Sale. My mother was given this recipe in 1950 when it cost under a shilling to make. There is only one certainty about Guy Fawkes night and that is Parkin- we all knew there was something fishy about burning Catholics and it was probably wrong. According to our tradition, Parkin couldn't be eaten before Guy Fawkes night and was never cooked after the Christmas cake had been started. Yes, I am eating a slice now. Come on over.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds nice, however this still doesn't answer my question: why should this piece of trivial information be included in the "see also" section? Cassiantotalk 20:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
This article includes Social history following the era of events (ie. not purely a date-to-date focus) but criteria for inclusion between this and Bonfire Night seems oddly arbitrary. This relates to post-events social history, and has an article, reputable sources, so why not include it in some form? AnonNep (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I'll ever understand why people want to add every single trivial little detail to an article. It smacks of a lack of editorial sense. You add parkin and in a few months someone will come along complaining that the article doesn't include baked potatoes, or flapjacks. Parrot of Doom 20:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I'll ever understand why some people equate WP:FA with the sum total of all knowledge on any given subject. AnonNep (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Nobody does, but a line in the sand needs to be drawn against the ever increasing tendency to add trivia to every single article. Eric Corbett 21:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
WP does, understandably, have policies against adding trivia. But given that every stub begins that way (hopefully sourced, but often out of context, facts) the question is what constitutes trivia in a given article? I don't see anything in the WP:FA process, which seems to encourage summarising selected books/articles, that determines some definitive end point of article development. Except, of course, for those who pride themselves on their skill at extensively summarising the work of others - they certainly wouldn't want any anyone suggesting they'd missed anything in their heavy reliance on a narrow range of sources. AnonNep (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Stubs do not begin as trivia, they begin as short articles on a topic of some significance. And if you were to ask me what food I associate with Guy Fawkes Night it would be hot dogs. Eric Corbett 21:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Stubs aren't trivia within the world of Wikipedia, but within the world of broader knowledge on that subject those few lines most likely would be seen as trivia. Equally, what passes for a 'Featured Article' within the world of Wikipedia is clearly not the sum of all knowledge on that subject, and when additions with WP:RS appear they should be added in some form. That is, if, what we're aiming at is the sum of all knowledge. If we're about backing up the WP:FA process then no additions should be allowed, ever. AnonNep (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You have to take that "sum of all human knowledge" mantra with a large pinch of salt. For instance, I know what I had for breakfast this morning, and I know the name of my first cat. That's knowledge, but it's not encyclopedic knowledge as we know it Jim. Eric Corbett 22:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Equally, the point of WP:RS is to allow reputably sourced knowledge (are there any sources for what you had for breakfast, or your first cat?) to be added with due weight. Not for selected summarised sources to be used as the reason to block even a single, piddling, mention of anything with WP:RS. Even in those articles that are classed as worshiped and saintly FAs.
"The sum of all human knowledge" makes no mention of reliably sourced knowledge does it? Eric Corbett 22:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No, but WP:FA doesn't quarantine an article from additions either. AnonNep (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

By "additions" you mean trivia such as this? If it were up to me, I would lock all FA's. Then, for those wishing to add further "improvements", a consensus would need to be sought on the talk page. As far as I'm concerned, there is not enough protection for featured articles; but anyway, I digress. Cassiantotalk 17:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You are stepping on hallowed ground here. I can follow your jihad to remove trivia from the sacred text- but to describe 'Parkin and Treacle toffee' from a Parkin Night (as I am told November the 5th is called in Leeds), is using the wrong example. Would you call 'the mass wafer and communion wine' trivia in an article about Days of Holy Obligation? If you never experienced Parkin round the bonfire you missed the whole point of November 5th and had a deprived childhood- which have probably caused deep psychological problems. It would be therapeutic if you could take the Parkin article up to a GA- it is lacking.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
If your definition of perfection is Wikipedia featured article status then locking down FAs is probably the way to go. AnonNep (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
ClemRutter, to assume one had a "deprived childhood" with resulting "deep psychological problems", based on the fact that one didn't have a bit of cake as a kid is frankly moronic. Secondly, wine and bread is pertinent to Christ and the Holy day of obligation as it forms part of the story, so I don't see your point. This cake stuff you keep boring everyone has little relevance with GFN, other than the fact that some folk up north eat it while watching a few fireworks. AnonNep, there is no such thing as "perfection" and there is always room for improvement. All I'm suggesting is that taking things to the talk page on a FA would save a shed load of hassle, warring and trivial POV pushing like this. Cassiantotalk 20:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a brit, but assuming the Parkin_(cake) article itself is accurate, it does seem sufficiently related to GFN to me to warrant a See Also (but probably not a body mention, unless a general traditions area is started) As an outsider, it seems right on par with Bonfire toffee. There appear to be a number of RS making the association. Since Fawkes himself is from York, Yorkshire/Northern traditions do seem more appropriate. [2] [3] [4] [5] including a number of books on British traditions and history (IE not coming at it from only a food trivia angle) [6][7][8] [9][10][11] Gaijin42 (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto you wrote "This cake stuff you keep boring everyone has little relevance with GFN", Not everyone, as I do not find it boring. You say it is trivia, but that is your opinion not a fact. Like Gaijin42 I think "it does seem sufficiently related to GFN ... to warrant a See Also", then when the article is developed further it can be incorporated in to a section on contemporary celebrations. -- PBS (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, come on Cassianto - Clem was trying to lighten the mood a bit here. You don't really think he was being serious do you? As for "All I'm suggesting is that taking things to the talk page on a FA would save a shed load of hassle" that's exactly what has happened here and it doesn't seem to have saved any hassle does it?. Actually, from the google books refs Gaijin42 has found it appears that Bonfire toffee and parkin are the two foods associated with this festive occasion. I don't think the sky would fall in if they both had a brief mention in the see also section. Richerman (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd disagree with the inclusion: it's trivia, nothing more, nothing less. What other dross should we include just because someone's mother makes it every year? Good grief! (Of all the nonsense I've seen people getting wound up about... time to move on and try and write some bloody content, rather than this POV pushing...) - SchroCat (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Well you're a fine one to talk about people getting wound up after that little outburst. Don't you think it's somewhat insulting to talk about POV pushing? The article already has bonfire toffee in the see also section - what's so terrible about adding parkin when somebody has actually found a number of references to say it's a traditional part of the celebration? I'm against adding trivia myself but your oposition to adding one link just sounds pig-headed to me. Richerman (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not wound up at all, so perhaps you could keep your opinions about me to yourself? And as for "pig-headed"...? There are some rather base pieces of Anglo Saxon I could throw your direction for your silly little insult, but you're really not worth the effort. - SchroCat (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Really? You could have fooled me. I would suggest if you don't want to have people commenting on your posts you should stop insulting them with comments like "POV pushing" just because they have a different opinion to yours. If you think this has gone on too long I would suggest you take your own advice "move on and try and write some bloody content". Richerman (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well it obviously doesn't take much to fool you then. Perhaps if you stop being so patronising, then people may think your presence is worthwhile. At the moment, I'm not seeing much beyond your desire to tediously WP:bludgeon people who have the utter temerity to have an opposing opinion to your much vaunted judgement. - SchroCat (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, for sheer hypocrisy that takes the biscuit. Richerman (talk)
I don't see it as hilarious that you bludgeon people for expressing their opinion in one comment, thankfully. I find it rather tiresome, especially she I'm being called "pig headed" at the same time. Curious, and tedious. - SchroCat (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Both of you need to take a deep breath, but offhand I think its pretty nonsenical to tell someone to go work on content when sources and content are being directly discussed. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm… offhand I think it's pretty nonsensical to classify the ephemera of the "See Also" section as content, but I'm probably too "pig headed" to bother with trying to work out why you would want to. It's nice to know that people queue up to bludgeon others just for giving their opinion. I was passing by the article and thought I would comment: if this is the normal reception you give to people, then I won't be back. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

GFN in Ireland[edit]

I see someone else is trying to tell us that GFN is not celebrated in Ireland[12]. Perhaps they should see this and also the leaflet produced by the Orange Order about bonfires at [13]. Richerman (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That's precisely why I reverted them. The text they were removing was even backed up by a reliable source. Still, they might assume that their POV overrides everything else, which of course it doesn't. Cassiantotalk 14:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I was aware of that but I thought some easily found online references on this page would be something we could point to in the future when we get this problem again - which we surely will. Richerman (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice idea! Cassiantotalk 15:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)