# Talk:Mary I of England

This article is a biography of Mary Tudor. It should not include unsourced tangential digressions of little to no relevance to Mary's life story. The Spanish guarded their trade routes, that is all that needs to be said at this article for readers to understand the point. Material that is not found in biographies of Mary should not be included in this biography of Mary per the principle of due weight. It is disruptive to continue to edit war against established consensus. DrKay (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrm87, I have very little idea where you acquired the idea that "footnotes do not need to be sourced", but it was not from our content policies and guidelines. Remsense ‥ 论 21:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Firstly the footnote is not tangential if it is related to a point being made in the text. Spanish mercantilism did not exist in this time period because Spain itself did not have a unified trade policy. If you were referring to military policy, I would agree that Spain could be used without issue, but the trade policies of Castile and Aragon were too different at this time to just lump them together so casually. I agree that the difference does not belong in the main text, but a footnote should be included to note that there was a difference.
Secondly, if the footnote points to an article whose whole purpose explains Castilian mercantilism then providing a citation is redundant. Ecrm87 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
What does this detail add to the reader's understanding of Mary? I'd be surprised if she herself knew of these intricacies. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I really do not want to be a pedant, but that's precisely what tangential means, and how it is usually intended in editorial critique: the tangential passage is clearly related to the main text for a brief moment, but it then goes off in its own direction.
Linking another Wikipedia article is never sufficient citation for any claim: that this would potentially be circular is a very basic fact about editing Wikipedia.
The fact remains that the Spanish Empire is lumped together casually like the "will" and "interests" of literally any political entity: if it were central to the biography in question, more nuance would be due. This, however, is a biography about Mary Tudor, and such details are not in focus, nor should they be.
Remsense ‥ 论 21:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Who can say what she did and didn't know, but Castile and Aragon charged different tariffs at their ports for example and had different rules, so I would expect her merchants certainly did know.
It's a footnote! Provided it is related to what's being discussed in the main text then that is sufficient.
Given the article is sourced I don't really follow that logic, but I have a source in any case which can be added.
I'm not putting it in focus, again, it's a footnote!
Ecrm87 (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this is the article about Queen Mary, not one about her merchants. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Yet the sentence is discussing Spanish merchants. If you don't think that is relevant to Queen Mary, by that same logic it should be removed too. Ecrm87 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
An entire sentence! Don't spend it all in one place. Our point if we have to boil it down is you do not need this footnote in this biography. The thrust is as nuanced as any brief summary of tertiary political actors in a given narrative would be. If this is your footnote, someone else would have their own elsewhere. If you cannot be convinced that neither are really needed here, then I would not really know how to better explain that to you. Remsense ‥ 论 23:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
That is your opinion, it is not mine. I can't find any guidance in Wikipedia stating that tangential information cannot be provided in footnotes. In fact the second sentence of Help:Footnotes states: 'In this context, the word "Footnotes" refers to the Wikipedia-specific manner of documenting an article's sources and providing tangential information'. If I were trying to include this in the main text I would entirely take your point that it shouldn't be there, but to remove a footnote because you think it irrelevant to the main text seems to me that you don't understand one of the main reasons for footnotes. Ecrm87 (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
It is just economical writing, I'm afraid. Remsense ‥ 论 00:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Which seems to boil down to: 'You can't add footnotes to this page because then anyone can add footnotes'. Which seems to me to be breaching Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Ecrm87 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I still do not accept the reasons given above for removing a footnote. There have not been any concrete Wikipedia policies mentioned that make any reference to removing footnotes because they don't fit with the main thrust of an article. The wikipedia policy in its opening sentence makes it clear that footnotes can be used for imparting tangential information and it seems to me that the whole discussion above relates to what should be in the main text and not on footnotes. I will also reiterate that the text on the page as it now reads requires clarification outside the main text, as saying 'mercantilist Spanish' in an article relating to the 16th century is as erroneous as saying 'mercantilist British' in an article relating to the 17th century. Ecrm87 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrm87 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not just because it's a footnote. Everyone else thinks it's unnecessary detail. Do you think that a consensus may have been established here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I see a lot of comments by a group of editors who edit the page regularly to the point of policing it. I see a consensus yes, but not a particularly healthy one. Ecrm87 (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't edit this page regularly. I certainly don't "police" it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
That wasn't referring to you, but rather generally. The page's history features a lot of reversions by only two editors. I don't think a consensus based on suppressing edits is helpful or indeed in accordance with what wikipedia is here for. Ecrm87 (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Mary 1 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 20 § Mary 1 until a consensus is reached.  ArthananWarcraft (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

After external discussion and research, as well as inspect of one of three sources, I realised there was source redundancy while other texts are speculative about Tallis' presence and I conflated all three. This is poor link verification. Please take admin action if necessary as this is not a single error. Eurostarguage (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)