Talk:Wars of the Roses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Wars of the Roses was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 18, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 22, 2005, May 22, 2006, and May 22, 2007.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject England (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Yorkshire (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Wars of the Roses is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge contents from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Social History of the Wars of the Roses into here?[edit]

Just an idea, I've postponed the G13 for now. Quicklink: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Social History of the Wars of the Roses. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation[edit]

I think the chart under "2 Summary of events" may have been taken from a copyrighted source. I couldn't find a citation for it. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Risssa: I don't believe so? Are you implying the image itself is derivative? It was created via [1] NativeForeigner Talk 00:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Created by whom? Are you saying that it is original research? I believe it should go. It's hard to read, far too large and contributes little to the article. HLGallon (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't object to its removal. It's quite out of place. I don't however think it's a copyright enfringement. (In terms of its accuracy, no clue, it doesn't say from where they recieved the information). NativeForeigner Talk 09:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see it go. It's too large and the content is unreferenced (by which I don't mean that it's necessarily wrong, but that the author has not cited her sources). It adds nothing which can not be adequately conveyed by written text. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hy everybody, I'm the designer of the infographic "Wars of the Roses- battles and outcomes development" ([2]), that had been published in this page (Summary of events section) until a couple of week ago. I haven't understood why did you choose to remove it. After a fast research I discover that it has been shared by many pages - about these battles, of course - of different countries (also the Russian one [3]) and just two weeks ago it occupy a large space in this summary section. Could someone explain me this choice, please? Has it something to do with this copyright violation? GiuliaSonzo (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
GiuliaSonzo, did you read what people have written above? In case you didn't: there seems to be agreement that there's no copyright violation; the content of the diagram is unreferenced (i.e., not cited to reliable sources); the graphic, as you say, seemed to "occupy a large space". Too large, in fact. Sorry about that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers Yes, I read it, but I didn't know if the chart that you're talking about was mine (I couldn't find any references). The choice to dedicate that large space wasn't mine, someone other do it (when I uploaded the chart it occupied a smaller place, like other images). Maybe someone appreciated my work. However, that chart has been realized during a university course, and its aim was to simplify the learning of these complex wars. It summarize places, kings, battles and years. Which are the references?! The references are in this Wikipedia page! I'm sorry, I thought that references were needed if you add new information, not if you use wikipedia-page content ('cause already it has references). I'll upload the chart with the references. GiuliaSonzo (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
As you wish, GiuliaSonzo. I'm afraid I doubt if that will change the consensus that has formed here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)