Talk:Battle of Rowton Heath

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Rowton Heath article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Battle of Rowton Heath has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 8, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Military history: British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms GA‑class

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 articles

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cheshire GA‑class Mid‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire 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.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 24, 2011.

Template:Findnotice

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Rowton Heath/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 01:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look over the next few days and then start to make some comments. SilkTork *^YES! 01:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Pause

I'm going to have limited internet access over the weekend as I'm going to France visiting relatives. I'll be back on March 3rd, and I'll finish dealing with this review then. SilkTork *^YES! 18:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay. I'll be finishing this off shortly. SilkTork *^YES! 17:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're busy, I'm sure someone else can take over in short order, that's no big deal. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

A useful article which summarises the main events of the day and puts them in context. It follows the sources I was able to check, and appears to be uncontroversial and neutral. I did some minor tidying up - the article was essentially sound and no need for any further work to meet GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 17:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rowton Heath is wrong, it's called Rowton Moor

Here is the official local plaque...

.

So why is this article named incorrectly as Rowton Heath? No one round here calls it Rowton Heath, it's always been Rowton Moor, as can be seen by it own name on the official plaque. The name of this article is wrong. My grandparents grew up near here and they always called it Rowton Moor, too, never heath.

More interestingly on Wikimedia Commons, there are 20 images listed by, I assume local people, who have taken pictures of "Rowton Moor" whereas there is but one by a visitor who uses the term "Rowton Heath". Is that how history is corrupted, take a name but it's only official if an "official" makes one up for it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.75.96 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess both are "correct". All the sources used for the article that are searchable online use "Heath". Simon Ward in Chester: A History uses "Moor". I see no point in changing it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow what a typically smug and predicable Wikipedian answer to the case when a heavily-worked on article is wrong but pride goes before an IP being taken as correct. Even the official plaque says its Moor (not Heath). Better still I actually bothered to do a Google search: Moor = 940,000 "hits" whereas Heath = 78,000 "hits", so even from such a crude examination of the evidence it is quite clear what this article's title should actually be. ("All the sources used for the article that are searchable online use "Heath"". So what? They're patently wrong, it also shows how lazy WP is for cut and paste) Besides what on earth does "both correct mean"? Because usually if it's wrong a WP editor will defeat any point on very simple grounds, like no references or Original Research. In this case an IP is clearly correct but the error is simply brushed aside and dismissed by an established editor who thinks they are "right"! So typical of this school-borne homework essay site, as the quote notes: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." 86.129.68.91 (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better search is on Google Books for "Battle of Rowton Moor" (1,870) vs "Battle of Rowton Heath" (3,410). Using that metric, "heath" wins. —howcheng {chat} 20:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this two years ago and now there is interest? Well on Wikipedia there is something called WP:COMMONNAME, the common name for the battle is Rowton Moor not Rowton Heath (the sarcastic IP above has already noted that the common name on Google is Rowton Moor). Even the official interpretative plaque states it is called Rowton Moor not Rowton Heath. Besides just because it is called Rowton Heath in more books is irrelevant, all that shows is how often writers/researchers copy each other and repeat the error. The proper name is Rowton Moor, so this article is named incorrectly.109.149.211.52 (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]