Talk:Richard III of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction - too long? Maybe a little[edit]

I've just seen the template. May I humbly suggest removing paragraph 5 (reburial) and making paragraph 4 (finding of remains) shorter? I really cannot see how the first 3 paragraphs could be even shorter... I only hope we can find a stable outlook, I was hoping to update the Italian version to the new adds one of these days... Just my thoughts Isananni (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Follow my footsteps and tell me I've trodden in something. I compared it similar articles- Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, and Henry VII- and it is much longer- too long I thought. But- I then compared it to Elizabeth I's article. That is about the same length lede (or certainly comparative anyway) as this one: BUT it's a smaller article. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, take parapraph 4 and 5 away and it will be about the same length as HVII, even though I would not go to such extreme lengths (forgive the pun) since the discovery of the remains does make Richard's case peculiar if not unique and should be mentioned, however shortly, in the lead paragraph. I had already expressed my perplexities over paragraph 5, but then you agreed with Martin it was ok for the lead chapter, so I gave in. I think EI and RIII are pretty much the same size as articles, probably the discovery of remains and reburial sections are an extraordinary feature, but I would not take them away, not entirely at least. EIV is probably too short, but I would personally not venture in editing his article Isananni (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Just for info, the exact size (in bytes) of an article can be found via the page information link to the left of the actual article. E.g., here.
Thank you, but am I correct in assuming that information also includes the references, the bibliography, etc? And we know how well sourced Richard's article is in comparison with many others, while in terms of article itself my impression was RIII and EI were more or less comparable Isananni (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I moved the whole paragraph on the reinterment to the Reburial and tomb section, leaving only the indication of date and place of reburial at the end of paragraph 4. I tried to think of how paragraph 4 in the lead could be shortened, but however I spin it, something would be lacking in an already rather summarised passage and I feel the discovery of Richard's remains is a unique feature of this monarch that should be kept in the lead paragraph. I personally think the lead paragraph is now rather acceptable, but of course my changes can be reverted. Isananni (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Is it really too long? I think it's okay.Deb (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The length is consistent with guidelines. Most articles have lead sections that are actually a lot shorter that they should be according to guidelines. Paul B (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


Richard III was only born in one county, i.e. Northamptonshire, so that Wikiproject has some relevance to him.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

And he died in Leicestershire, and lived in Yorkshire, and London. I guess the real issue is what is the point of these 'projects' being listed. How does it help the article, or the project? What will it achieve? Paul B (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to say I agree with Paul's questioning, but also apologise for deleting the category unilaterally rather than bringing it to talk, as Johnsoniensis has done. Cheers. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps comments from WikiProject Northamptonshire members could be rquested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northamptonshire.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this has been done. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did it, but it doesn't look like there's much interest.Deb (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Good result. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, I'm at home... Deb (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Latest changes by user Charles Sf[edit]

May humbly suggest all recent changes by user Charles Sf are amended/reverted to the text as was before his/her intervention? Reasons being: - Most entries are unsourced, whereas to by best knowledge e.g. Rivers being accused of plotting Gloucester's life is reported by Mancini (as reported by Kendall, Carson, even Ross, etc. ). The Council at first did not approve of Anthony Woodville's conviction for treason in May 1483 because technically Richard's role as Protector of the Realm had not been confirmed yet - The Confession of James Tyrrel is a stand alone section/article that has its place in Wikipedia and does not need to be fully reported in this specific article, new findings, if ever (David Starkey has claimed to have found "new" documents that he has not produced and his interpretation of their meaning is as good as any) belong to Tyrrel's article that already had its due referral link when his name was mentioned in Richard's article Looking forward to your opinion Isananni (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard III of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)