Talk:Battle of Barnet

message: the link to the contemporary account is broken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.189.100 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 6 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: Not sure that it is of more than trivial interest but the alternative history Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen meticulously copied the Battle of Barnet as one of its fictional battles.
Avalon 11:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Including the confusion of badges?  Perhaps I ought to reread it. —Tamfang (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: I am going to rewrite this article in the next few days.  It will be a major edit; new sources are going to be added, and the information sourced to them.  A background and character section will be added, along with the legacies and Shakespeare!  Maps, and pictures will also be added.  Jappalang (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jappalang (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite (2009)

message: * ... that that despite being one of the most important battles of the Wars of the Roses, the Battle of Barnet (pictured) had only one surviving chronicle based on an eyewitness account?
:*ALT1:... that in the Battle of Barnet (pictured), Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick was fighting for Henry VI, whom he formerly deposed, and against Edward IV, whom he had helped to gain the throne?
:*ALT2:... that the House of York won the Battle of Barnet (pictured) on 14 April 1471, partly due to a case of friendly fire by the House of Lancaster?
:*ALT3:... that Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick (pictured), did not deliver a speech on his death in the Battle of Barnet as depicted by Shakespeare, but was stabbed in the neck and robbed of his armour?
ALT1 was selected without picture.  Jappalang (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Did you know ...

message: Both Baron Hastings and Richard, Duke of Gloucester (the future Richard III) fought at Barnet with Edward IV.  Why does their names keep getting deleted when I add them?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.12.202.93 (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your contribution history does not show any edits to this article, so based on the similarity of contributions, I take it that you are IP 24.238.41.82.  In regards to your other IP's edits, Infoboxes are summaries and not meant for details of the battles.  Commanders of the armies involved should suffice; there is no need to go into details by adding notable combatants.  Any warrior or battle leader, who are notable, will already be mentioned (and linked to) in the main body text.  Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Battle

message: I was asked by  to look at this article, and of course I couldn't just give it a quick once-over. (It's the detail freak in me.) You said you didn't want a copyedit, but it's hard for me to read articles without using the red pen once or twice. The research is solid (I assume, since I've never really studied this period of English history), and the writing is generally solid.
Here are some thoughts I had while reading. (I hope these obsessive nitpicks don't give the impression of major flaws in the article; it's very polished overall.)
Lead
* I'm not used to seeing specific distances mentioned in the lead. Maybe just say "...a small town north of London..."?
*:   Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Fair enough. I figured there's some set of rules for this sort of thing. Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * One of the joys of the peer review process. Do it like A. Do it like B! Do it like C. Now combine all those styles together. Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * Generally fine; changed the ending to "defeated foes". Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * I cleaned up the wording a bit to make more sentences there. Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * Yay. Have you seen Looking for Richard? Good flick. Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * Actually I think the caption in the current revision is fine. Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * Okay, I see. I changed the first phrase to "praises Edward's leadership and skill in close combat". Hopefully this is agreeable; it's a clearer distinction, I think. Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * Yeah, it's obviously not a big deal, but seeing as how I'm one o'them hotheaded rebel yanks.. =) Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * Yeah, it was okay before too. I just thought I'd ask. But the inserted stuff is good too. (You know, in case we get some hotheaded Lancastrian partisan who feels the article is otherwise pushing a pro-Yorkist POV.) Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * Nice. Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * Looks good. Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * Word. Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * Nice. Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * Yeah, I think it would be good to present the views of contemporary sources, and make it clear that modern historical study like Royle gives these figures. Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * Sure, no worries. Looks good. Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * Okay, then I think the average reader will be confused like I am, so I wikilinked chronicle here. Hopefully this will help make the distinction. Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: * Good lyric, but I moved the wording around a bit. Would I look stupid if I asked for some explanation of "boke telleth pleyn"? Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Nope, it is in old or Middle English as far as I can tell... (curses to those historians who simply add in Middle English, French, and Latin quotes at times without even explaining the contents).  However, the general gist of it is as stated (God-given, per "Man plans... but God disposes").  This PDF states that boke telleth simply means "as the book says".  Pleyne could either be "full" or simply "plain"; so "as the book plainly says" where "book" would refer to the scriptures or Bible perhaps.  Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: That was terrific editing; I am amazed at the amount of excess that was excised.  I am aware I am apt to be superfluous in my words but whoa...  That is one big red pen you have.  Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about my delay in returning to this article. Good luck with it! Scartol • Tok 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Scartol

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Barnet. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326002135/http://www.r3.org/bookcase/warkwort/worthvi.html to http://www.r3.org/bookcase/warkwort/worthvi.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion