Jump to content

Talk:Guy Fawkes Night

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a05:1700:0:10::6 (talk) at 11:50, 1 August 2015 (→‎Survey: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleGuy 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 starGuy 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 26, 2010Good article nomineeListed
January 28, 2011Featured topic candidatePromoted
June 9, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Archives (Index)


Should there be a featured article review?

Perhaps the first step could be a featured article review to bring up the known shortcomings of this article. -- PBS (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is being reviewed is an interesting question - is this a history of the Gunpowder Plot, a history of Guy Fawkes night, a key article that links on to the others, or a bit of all? AnonNep (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and the areas where this featured article fails. The chief one ins "1.b comprehensive". But that leads to all sorts of other ones in that list (such as "2.a"). At the time this was promoted to FA status, "1.e stability" was not met (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1. That was ignored and stability is still an issue as can be seen in the edit history of the last 24 hours. -- PBS (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there should be a review. The history of this talk page indicates that what little stability the article has, is merely the result of potential editors being 'warned off' from even attempting to edit by an entrenched cabal. From what I gleaned from the original FA review, the principal assessor seemed to ignore many cogent points and had the erroneous view that objections to content, or lack of content, could only be based on objections to sources. Urselius (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is perfectly stable, it's just a few cake-obsessed editors who think otherwise. Is this in an attempt to assert your own POV? CassiantoTalk 11:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been involved in moderating a good deal of, mostly nationalistic, POV peddling. Please look at the history of the Basil I article, where you will see the correct method of coping with this. Armenian nationalists have added material supporting an Armenian origin for the Byzantine emperor, did I do as PoD always does - revert with an added insulting comment? No, I let anything with a decent reference stand and I merely add something moderating it from an equally good reference. This is called "not owning an article" - something yourself and PoD seem incapable of. Urselius (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like your friend PoD you quickly reach the level of crass insult. Have a look at a really stable FA, such as Charles II of England whose talkpage has 2 archives, this travesty's talkpage has 9 archives! A lot of people obviously have issues with it. The instability of the page is a self-evident and established fact. Go back and try to come up with more logical arguments. Urselius (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto's comment is an extraordinary statement which should be withdrawn. Of course the article is "stable", when any substantive (and referenced) changes to the article are immediately reverted by its custodian(s). The long-standing disputes over the content of this article should never have allowed it to become a FA in the first place. Many of us have, I am sure, given up on the article, in view of the needless acrimony on this talk page. Unfortunately, all the evidence is that an FA review is utterly pointless if the same editors are going to be involved. But, an independent review, to assess whether it actually meets the needs of readers looking for a comprehensive overview of the celebration, is long overdue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't for the "custodians" then this article would be filled with factoids and deteriorate beyond all recognition. Also, you don't need to ping me I have watch listed it. CassiantoTalk 12:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the "owners of this article" relaxed their control a little they would get input from many experienced and talented editors, which would produce an article that truly reflected the actuality of an ongoing folk-celebration. As it stands now it is unrepresentative, turgid and biased. Urselius (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth I've added Bonfire Night to the 'See Also' of the present Gunpowder Plot template. AnonNep (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully Urselius your opinion counts for nothing. CassiantoTalk 13:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then your opinion and that of other "PoD-U-Likes" is equally nugatory. Wikipedia is a co-operative venture where all opinions, if they are reasonable, count equally. You seem not to understand this, and it is simple enough. Urselius (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, please try and be civil when replying to other editors. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try sure, but in light of the idiocy that is currently going on here, I can't make any promises. CassiantoTalk 18:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Cassianto: The article has not been stable for years as is evident from the talk pages and the edit history as demonstrated over the last 48 hours. I notice that on your user page until recently you said you live in Essex and that "I often take part in peer reviews and frequently review at FAC." This article is titled "Guy Fawkes Night" it is not titled "history of Guy Fawkes Night" do you think that a featured article review would end with a consensus that this article adequately covers the subject? For example do you think that an American or Australian would know if bonfire night is still widely celebrated in England? Do you know if the statement in the lead "Halloween, has lately increased in popularity, and according to some writers, may threaten the continued observance of 5 November." is true for New Zealand? -- PBS (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what relevance my residence has to do with this article, or the fact that I take part in reviews? I would expect to find "History" of Guy Fawkes Night within the first sub-section of THIS article and not, like you incorrectly say, in a separate article. For the same reason as to why I would think it stupid to have "Remeberence Day" separate to "History of Remeberence Day". CassiantoTalk 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relevancy of your residency is your knowledge of the subject that you would probably not have if you came from Georgia. I am sorry if my words were not clear, but I did not say that the history was in a separate article, instead I emphasised what the title was. The question I asked (given you knowledge of the subject outside of the article and you knowledge of reviews), was would a featured article review of this article be likely to end with a consensus that this article adequately covers the subject? I then asked two subsidiary questions. I look forward to you answers. -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one way to find out and that is to take it to FAR if you wish. However, I would embrace Sandy's comments above and think very carefully before you do. CassiantoTalk 21:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is a Featured Article review instigated? It is long overdue here. Urselius (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to WP:FAR and follow the instructions you'll find there. Eric Corbett 13:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this little spat at Bencherlite's talk ... Urselius, you should be aware that FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that. There are genuine problems with this article that a number of editors, administrators among them, have commented upon. It is on this basis that any FA review would be instigated. I am considering taking action against PoD's unwarranted personal attacks on myself, though this is an entirely separate matter procedurally. Urselius (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:SandyGeorgia do you consider yourself neutral regarding whether this article is or is not a FA? Two central issues raised from the list of FA criteria when this article was was promoted were stability and comprehensiveness. Neither of these criteria were met at the time or have ever been met since. Why do you think that this article given FA status when those two issues were not addressed? Recently you asked for an example of high-quality has been "misunderstood, mis-applied, or 'used as a bludgeon'" see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1. -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do consider myself neutral: the article was promoted by Karanacs. The derailed and personalized discussion on the FAC indicates precisely why I am reminding here that FAR is not dispute resolution: should the same editors who disrupted the FAC without bringing actionable issues relative to the criteria raise a FAR without (again) addressing actionable items and instead resorting to personalization, the result will not be productive. FAR is not dispute resolution. The FAC was derailed by editors bringing personal matters and without focusing on What is a featured article; some of the same editors are again doing the same here. And no, this is not an example of the issue you raised at WIAFA talk; this was and is an example of editors not applying the criteria and personalizing a discussion. Please initiate an RFC for that purpose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were the person asserting that the only objection to a FA candidate was objection to its sources. I could write an impeccably sourced article on the American celebration of Thanksgiving and completely omit any mention of turkey-eating, would such an article be complete? Would such an article be worthy of FA status? Additionally, do you approve of editors who block the addition of well-sourced material to certain articles because they have their own agendas and or prejudices? Urselius (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Urselius, you seem to have a habit of taking discussions off-topic. Please review WP:WIAFA. I would never say "that the only objection to a FA candidate was objection to its sources". I have no opinion one way or another on this article: I do have an opinion on editors who don't appropriately engage FAC, FAR and WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I quote your good self Sandy, taken directly from the record of the FAC: "...there is no point in trying to determine what direction an article should take without first examining what is supported by sources. As of now, there are no talk page archives, but I find no evidence anywhere that anyone objecting to the article has done it based on sources. Anything short of that has no place here at FAC; please keep disruption out of the FAC and focus on sources." Urselius (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@user:SandyGeorgia you wrote above "The FAC was derailed by editors bringing personal matters and without focusing on What is a featured article; some of the same editors are again doing the same here". In which way was the FAC derailed? What do you think were the personal matters which were raised and which editors are doing the same here? -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just reread the FAC page, the article, and what's currently on this talk page (didn't go through the archives) to refresh my memory. Has anything changed since the article was promoted? It looks like Bonfire Night was created as an article and kept rather than redirected/merged here. (Nb: I think it's poor practice to include a link to another article in the "also known as" line of the lead. It would be much more appropriate to include a sentence later in the lead and in the body of the article stating that modern celebrations are often known more as Bonfire Night, with the link there). Have any new high-quality sources been published that dispute what's in the article? If not much has changed in terms of scholarship and article content, then it is highly unlikely that an FAR would change the status quo. It's not a place to rehash previous arguments. Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not the problem, please address the real problem, which is lack of comprehensiveness. Please do not hold up the shibboleth of "sources", it is entirely irrelevant! Of course there are perfectly reliable sources available to use to fill in the huge gaps in the present article's comprehensiveness. I have shown one below. It is from a specialist journal and as such has higher credibility than the works of Antonia Fraser, much quoted in the present article. Antonia Fraser is a historian but she is also a populist historical biographer, her works cannot be held to be more academically acceptable than material from a specialist journal. Urselius (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Have any new high-quality sources been published that dispute what's in the article?" - to my knowledge, no. This article was written to reflect the coverage offered by several expert authors. I have repeatedly asked any editors who object to this structure to find other, expert sources that place as much emphasis on the modern celebration as the existing authors place on its history. To date, not one of those editors has done this. They have searched the internet and found the usual odds and ends, but nothing that suggests that Cressy, Fraser or Sharpe have been remiss in their treatment of 5 November. It remains my view therefore that the items these editors would like included are trivial by nature, and that triviality has no place in any article on Wikipedia. Parrot of Doom 18:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to add that User:AnonNep has found a new source, published in 2013, that I was unaware of. This at least explains the event's relevance in foreign countries using a proper context, so I may well buy this book to see what I can learn from it. Parrot of Doom 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
High quality material was available at the time of the FAC, it just did not fit in with your POV peddling. Fraser is a populist historical biographer, not an academic, she has never held an academic post. She also spelled the name of a relative of mine wrongly in one of her books! Urselius (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the sources used, it has never been the problem. The problem is that the article as it stands in incomplete. It does not cover recent and modern practices to any appreciable extent. This would in itself not be a particular problem except that some editors, including PoD, will not allow anyone to add material to the article to remedy this deficit. There are many fine and reputable published sources available, I have a number on my computer right now, but I cannot use them because anything I add to the article will be reverted. This is the problem not what sources were used to write what is here already - what is here already is just not sufficient for an encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. Urselius (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@user:Karanacs as a non-Brit I think that the content of the current article may have confused you. The article is titled "Guy Fawkes Night" under the provisions of WP:AT section WP:UCRN "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." The most common name for "Guy Fawkes Night" in England is "Bonfire Night" (see these simple global searches but not of reliable sources [1][2] -- but they do show it is one event with two common names) but as that name is also used for other events in other English speaking countries it is perfectly acceptable to choose "Guy Fawkes Night" as an alternative and at the time of the FAC process (initiated on 1 May 2011 and promoted by you on 9 June 2011) the page Bonfire Night was a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page was moved by Nikkimaria unilaterally and without prior discussion on 7 July 2011‎ from "Bonfire night" to Bonfire Night (disambiguation) (and IMO that move needs to be reverted). At the time you promoted this article not one of the issues over the criteria I had raised at the FAC had been discussed in the FAC process. The chief one was and is "1.b comprehensive". But that leads to all sorts of other ones in that list (such as "2.a"). Also at the time this was promoted to FA status "1.e stability" was an issue, (one editor had repeatedly breached the 3RR rule over the preceding months), why did you ignore that criteria? -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a pretty well-read non-Brit :) I cannot comment on my thought process of almost 4 years ago (I've slept since then!), but I will say that there appeared to be consensus at FAC that the article was comprehensive. The stability criteria is usually invoked when the article is massively changing from the beginning of the FAC nomination to the end (text being added or removed). The appearance of the article did not change much during this particular FAC nomination. The article today also reflects what it was when originally promoted. That tells me it has been pretty stable. I suspect there are compromises that could take place here to partially satisfy both parties (leave out the trivia, add a line about where 5 Nov is still celebrated with Bonfires, and call it day), but I am have not read the sources. I've been involved in my own set of disputes on topics like this, and I know it's difficult to provide the correct balance. Good luck, gentlemen! Karanacs (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that some people think the narrative constructed by those experts who do know something about this topic, whose research I have summarised here, is incorrect. They think their own views are more important than the experts and they will not listen to reason. I have been defending this article against this idiocy for years. Parrot of Doom 22:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No Parrot, you are being completely disingenuous here. 'People' do not want to rewrite the sections of the article concerning the early history of the celebration - except in a very minor way to improve its structure for readability. What 'people' want to do, me included, is to incorporate more material on recent and modern aspects of the celebration, with appropriate citations to reputable sources. You repeatedly block and revert such additions for specious and entirely personal reasons. Any user or administrator can look at my record of article creation and editing and see that I am scrupulous in the use of citations - I'm a professional scientist and rigorous citation of sources is in my bloodstream. Do I want to swamp this article with trivia? Obviously not. However, this article is not about brain surgery or the decoding of Linear B, it is about a folk celebration, and as such certain things that are central to it as a folk celebration are less than entirely po-faced and serious. This is in the nature of the subject of the article, it cannot be avoided. Urselius (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, if previous arguments were cogent but ignored, then they still constitute a perfectly legitimate basis for re-appraisal. Nothing on Wikipedia is written in stone - that's one of its virtues. Urselius (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Urselius, Karanacs just gave you a helpful list of suggestions and questions, none of which you addressed. I'm unwatching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the suggestion is that the terms 'Guy Fawkes Night' and 'Bonfire Night' are used entirely interchangeably. To foist on them a distinction 'Guy Fawkes Night' is a historical celebration and 'Bonfire Night' is a modern celebration would just be wrong. Wikipedia has to faithfully reflect reality not impose an artificial construct on reality. Urselius (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an account from Folklore and Myth Author(s): H. R. Ellis Davidson, Folklore,Vol. 87, No. 2 (1976), pp. 131-145Published Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Guys and effigies are burnt, bonfires and fireworks cause a certain amount of damage and injury every year, and special local customs recorded within fairly recent times include bell-ringing, shooting parties, the eating of special goodies like parkin, gingerbread and toffee, the burning of tar-barrels, the carrying round of effigies or of live men with blackened faces, as well as processions with masks, disguises and music. Throughout the nineteenth century, the evening of 5 November was a time of licensed hooliganism in many places. At Guildford, for instance, the 'guys' were not effigies but rioters, who rushed about in disguise, with torches and bludgeons, breaking down fences and gates for the bonfires: as George Oldcastle described them in 1904, "Their cry will never be forgotten by anyone whoever heard it. It was a thrilling, piercing note of peculiar intensity and was a warning for all peaceable citizens to be on their guard".

This is interesting and useful material and it includes reference to Parkin! Why should reputable and fully published material like this not be allowed to be used within the article? I really do not understand the blockade on such material. Urselius (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ever occurred to you Urselius that the reason your edits are being reverted are because they are little more than trivia and are not worthy of being included in a featured article? CassiantoTalk 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has it ever occurred to you, Cassianto, that you are helping to enforce a ban on open editing of an article, that you are aiding and abetting the ownership of an article in direct contradiction to basic Wikipedia rules and ethics? Urselius (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that this article is about a folk celebration, and not the philosophy of Aristotle or particle physics, I would think that anyone would consider that relevant matter covered in an academic journal called "Folklore" would be appropriate. Incidentally, Antonia Fraser, who is quoted within the article as if she was a walking oracle, works at the intersection of academic and populist writing. As such anything from a specialist journal has more academic "clout" than her material. Urselius (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GlandGlad you are back Cassianto. Did you notice that I posed you a question a higher up the page? I look forward to your answer. -- PBS (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Gland" to be back also PBS. CassiantoTalk 18:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out my typing mistake and thank you for responding to my question (I have added a supplemental). -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Parrot of Doom do Cressy, Fraser or Sharpe provided a comprehensive survey of which countries celebrate Guy Fawkes Night in the 21st century and the history of Guy Fawkes night in those countries? Do they cover modern usage in Australia and New Zealand and why there is a difference between those two countries? Do they cover modern concern over environmental issues? Do they cover the number of accidents that occur each year due to fireworks? Do they cover political issues over the safe storage of fireworks or age restrictions on the purchase of fireworks? If not do you consider all such issues "trivial by nature"? -- PBS (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 July 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. There is clearly no support for the rename to take place (Guy Fawkes Night -> Bonfire Night). The scope of the article, and whether Bonfire Night should be merged here, is not clear. There is an RfC below to determine the scope of the article. Following this, if support seems likely, a merge request for Bonfire Night to Guy Fawkes Night can be submitted. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Guy Fawkes Night → Bonfire Night – The most common name for this event appears to be "Bonfire Night". See Google Books [3], where "Bonfire Night" is twice as common as "Guy Fawkes Night". Bonfire Night is already a very small article simply summarising this one. The few details on that page about bonfire traditions elsewhere (Eleventh Night and St John's Eve) can be merged with Bonfire Night (disambiguation): these nights are infrequently referred to as "Bonfire Night" (often just by their proper names, occasionally as a lower case "bonfire night"). To see this, notice that Google results [4] for "Bonfire Night" mention overwhelmingly the contents of this page, not Eleventh Night or St John's Eve. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the post to make that clear. Thank you. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note (WP:NPA).
How clever you are IP, managing to know how to log RfCs when you're such a new editor. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a sock of someone with a motive. CassiantoTalk 22:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. The fractured nature of coverage of this subject is entirely due to a few editors (see discussions above) arrogating complete control over this page and thereby excluding much relevant information purely because of their narrowly antiquarian tastes. As a result, other pages, such as Gunpowder Plot in popular culture, appeared as a last resort for people wishing to bring more popular, folkloric and recent aspects of the ongoing annual celebration into Wikipedia coverage. Urselius (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Ultimately, a page on Bonfire Night/Guy Fawkes Night should present a thorough commentary on the event, both in historical terms and what occurs nowadays. If there is a problem with certain editors, it might be worth posting elsewhere (WP:England, WP:HOLIDAY?) for outside advice from other users. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested here some input from other users. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose remember, remember, the fifth of November and all that. This is a historical reference, and the historical nature of the origin of the term and event should probably be kept as the primary name. It is also a feature article. Maybe 'Bonfire Night', which seems to be mainly about the same subject, should be merged and redirected to here, the featured page, or that page renamed. Randy Kryn 14:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Bonfire Night" does seem more common nowadays. Whatever this article is called, it does make sense to merge the two articles and create a redirect: at the moment, editors are reaching Bonfire Night instead of this page. There is also Bonfire Night (disambiguation) for other nights that involve bonfires. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that this page had such a strong opinion base, just happened to notice it on the 'Requested move' page, thought of the movie "V", and what I knew the event as, and came by to comment. Possibly a neutral name such as "5th November, British Commonwealth" could cover all related topics. Guy Fawkes Night wasn't even the original name of the event, so it's possible that all points of view aren't being covered by choosing one title over any other. Just an idea to see if any consensus develops. Randy Kryn 21:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There is currently also a dispute about what to include at Bonfire Night. This version is supported by sources and describes how "Bonfire Night" is the British/Commonwealth tradition on 5 November, while other cultures also have celebrations involving bonfires under different names. This version has deleted the references and uses "Bonfire Night" as a general title for any celebration involving bonfires, including those with entirely different names (Eleventh Night etc.). 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And there is a discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Lead. And another one at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#A topic can't be both a part and a whole. --Scolaire (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See this from Google Trends: precisely once a year, there is a huge jump in interest for this "Bonfire Night". There is no such observation for any of the other events that involve bonfires. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article is about the history of Guy Fawkes Night, up to the present day. For at least 200 years of that 400+ year history, it was known primarily as Guy Fawkes Night. Only in the last few decades has it become known as bonfire night. Insofar as it pertains to 5 November, the Bonfire Night article is basically trivia that has no place here. Parrot of Doom 15:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that Debrett's (the most trusted authority on British etiquette) describes the event simply as "Bonfire Night". It is also interesting that the Google Books analysis given above shows that "Bonfire Night" has been more commonly used for all but 13 of the past 135 years. A simple Google search result gives the same conclusion (2,890,000 results vs 656,000 results). Does WP:COMMONNAME suggest we ignore what the common name has been for the last century and just use the name that was most used 200-400 years ago? Please provide some sources. You have already agreed that the celebration it is now known as "Bonfire Night". 81.152.36.213 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Please provide some sources" - they're right there, in the article. Read them if you'd like to know more. Parrot of Doom 21:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Parrot of Doom the article only has its current emphasis on the history of bonfire night in England, because of your repeated edit warring to keep it so.-- PBS (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what have you bought to the table PBS? I suggest nothing. CassiantoTalk 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest even less that nothing. Eric Corbett 10:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note
Users might wish to note that there has been a long-running dispute about this article between User:Cassianto and User:Urselius. In particular, Cassianto is accused of preventing others from editing the article and restricting its scope to just the history of the night, not how it is today, whilst Urselius is accused of adding unnecessary information. See the previous discussion. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming. As an American, I must say that I have never heard of a "bonfire night." It is a term simply not used. The burning of a Guy Fawkes dummy, however, is very well known among the cognoscenti. So I can't see any reason for renaming this particular article. As for other bonfire traditions, well, I suppose they can be handled either by themselves or in a separate article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Bonfire Night to here and move Bonfire Night (disambiguation) to Bonfire Night. Because there are other events referred to as "Bonfire Night" it follows that there would be more references to that name; that doesn't prove it's a more common name for this subject. Also, since there are several "bonfire nights" clearly some disambiguation is required - so it makes sense to keep Guy Fawkes Night right where it is. WaggersTALK 10:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for comments Looking here, and above, there is clearly a long-running dispute about the scope of the article. It appears as if this is why we have two articles (Guy Fawkes Night and Bonfire Night). I have begun a "request for comments" below for the scope to be decided. Might it be worth suspending this requested move until the scope is decided? 81.152.36.213 (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge, the consequence of which would be that this article turns in the entropy soup so beloved of some editors (bonfire night in Outer Mongolia, bonfire night in Greenland, bonfire night in Lithuania ...) and would promptly be delisted as a featured article for lacking focus. Eric Corbett 10:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All of the hypothetical examples you give would not be in this article, they would properly appear in Bonfire Night (disambiguation) along with the real examples currently listed there. This article should not have been promoted to FA status nor should it be kept as such, because it failed and continues to fail some of the featured article criteria. PoD was breaching the 3RR rule during the months running up to and including the FA process (diffs can be presented if proof is required), this means that it failed the "e stable:" criteria. It failed and continues to fail "b comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" because it ignores contemporary celebrations around the globe. Due to this failure to be comprehensive it also fails "well-researched", "neutral", "Media" "Length (it does not stay focused on the main topic)", because it is not comprehensive in its coverage. So the sooner FA status is taken away, the sooner this can become more comprehensive article. -- PBS (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      You are of course entitled to your opinion, however misguided and misinformed it may be. Eric Corbett 14:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not think that your comment is not constructive, because it contains no explanation as to what you think is the correct information over which you think I am misinformed. I wait with interest to read what it is that you think is the correct information. -- PBS (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      If you do believe this article should no longer be featured, you might wish to read through WP:FAR. The issue has already been raised at the talk page, so listing the article at "featured article review" might be best. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      You may not have noticed that it was PBS that raised it on this page. Scolaire (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      You might want to brush up on your understanding of double negatives PBS. Eric Corbett 15:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for pointing out my error, however as I recognise it as an error I do not believe that I need to "brush up [my] understanding of double negatives". I started out by writing "Your comment is not constructive" but decided that it was a matter of opinion as clearly as you spent time writing it you must have thought it constructive, so I tacked something on the front to make allowances for that and made a mistake. I still wait with interest to read what it is that you think is the correct information. -- PBS (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The correct information is the information already in the article, not the rag-tag of half-understood facts you seem so keen to add. Next question? Eric Corbett 16:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether the information "already in the article" is correct is not currently the major issue for it FA status. I think a more pressing issue is that the criteria "b comprehensive" is not met and has not been met at any time since before it was designated a FA. Do you think that it does meet the criteria "b comprehensive" in its current form and that there is noting more to be added to this article? -- PBS (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose to renaming or merging any trivia about bonfires into this article. The article is about what the title says it is about, Guy Fawkes Night. A featured historical article is infinitely preferable to a trivia magnet diluted with everything and anything mentioning bonfires. J3Mrs (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request for comments

This is an article about Guy Fawkes Night (also known as Bonfire Night). There have been numerous disputes before on the talk page about the scope of the article: should it focus just on the history of the event or should it also describe how the event is celebrated today?
An aforementioned example is that there is currently no mention of traditional Bonfire Night food (such toffee apples and parkin). It might be helpful to compare the article with Christmas, which does contain sections about both the history of the event and how it is celebrated today.
Note that information that might be relevant to this page is located elsewhere (Bonfire Night, Bonfire Night (disambiguation) and Gunpowder Plot in popular culture). 81.152.36.213 (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 1 Focus just on the history of the event.
  • Option 2 Describe also how the event is celebrated today.

Survey

  • Option 2 Many readers looking at this article would wish to read both about the history of the event and how it is celebrated today. This is consistent with other pages (for example, Christmas, Easter and Halloween). Unless this article is renamed "History of Guy Fawkes Night", its scope should not be so restricted. 81.152.36.213 (talk)
  • I would expect this article to describe how the event is currently celebrated, in addition to its history. This article does the history really well, so it is a shame that doesn't give much space to modern celebrations. We have an article on Guy Fawkes in popular culture to separate out what some regard as matters of modern trivia, so perhaps we need one on the History of Guy Fawkes Night to separate out what some regard as matters of antiquarian interest? (Incidentally, the talk archives of this article are in a mess - ClueBot has been adding seemingly randomly to various different archives from /Archives/1 to /Archives/8 over the last year or two without much regard to maintaining chronological order, so it is quite hard to look back to see who said what and when) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.191 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a place in the archives I have missed that shows consensus for this article not making proper mention of the present-day celebration? 81.152.36.213 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reported this matter to ANI. The ownership of the article and hostility to anyone who disagrees is completely unacceptable. 2A05:1700:0:10:0:0:0:6 (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you admitted at ANI that yu are socking. I await a block on your account on that basis. – SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Socking refers to using multiple accounts for an improper purpose. I have not voted elsewhere in this RfC and have made clear my use of this account. I am not comfortable with opposing these editors when there might be repercussions for me from them in the future. 2A05:1700:0:10:0:0:0:6 (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*All this appears to have been rumbling on since at least the FAC; it strikes me as tendentious and disruptive for it to constantly be brought up every couple of months or so unless new evidence/sources etc are provided. Nothing new has been offered this time round either and to be using IPs to evade scrutiny is abhorrent, whether it be to initiate RfCs or comment. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guy_Fawkes_Night&oldid=674067450"