Talk:Edward I of England

message: The important fact that Edward slew perhaps seven thousands, and likely more, at Berwick is obscured by a reference in a link to a particular bloody attack. Many articles in wikipedia include such facts in biographies, like that of  pope Benedict VII of Avignon who only helped slay five thousand at Cesenai (when he was a cardinal). Edward's article might also mention his singular achievement of killing off the biggest burgh in Scotland and add it to his proud death toll.  1f2 (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sack of Berwick (1296) says that estimates of deaths are from 4000 to 17000 and some sources say all were massacred and others that women were spared. There do not seem to be reliable sources for a definite estimate.  Dudley Miles (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the issue is more whether it is described as a "bloody attack" (as here) or captures that it features a massacre of civilians? It doesn't sound like there is much doubt that Edward ordered some kind of civilian massacre. Jim Killock (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

text: nuh uh 203.82.38.4 (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I've amended this to say there was a massacre, without getting into numbers, as that seems to be the main point (not just a "bloody seige"). Jim Killock (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massacre at Berwick 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for a move at this time. Like the discussion two years ago, there is almost an exactly even split among participants, with proponents of both viewpoints correctly marshalling points of policy in favor of their preference. Throughout this encyclopedia there are instances of English monarchs whose titles include "of England" and monarchs whose titles do not, so it is apparent that both formulations are permissible in appropriate conditions. This, therefore, boils down to a question of preference as to which conditions suffice for this purpose, a question to which this discussion has yielded no clear answer. I glean from the discussion that a separate nomination limited to Edward IV and Edward V would be more fruitful, and might be the best next step to pursue.  BD2412 T 02:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's their most common name in the English language at the present time, and the current most-common name is what we use to determine what an article's title is, not what their most common name was hundreds of years ago when they were alive. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Comment: the books given as examples for WP:COMMONNAME purposes are all part of the Yale English Monarchs series, so it's arguable that they're already disambiguated. It would be prudent to cast a wider net, just to be sure. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose per Tim O'Doherty's sensible and policy-based comments above. Zacwill (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Zacwill, Tim O'Doherty's comments are not policy-based. Policy has been cited to refute them. The WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) guideline has recently been amended, after a long and thorough discussion, to embrace these proposed titles precisely in order to bring the guideline in line with policy. Therefore, the current titles are against the policy and the guideline and the proposed titles are in line with them. Surtsicna (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim O'Doherty's comments are policy based, unless you've invested yourself with the power to discredit WP:AT (that is, when it suits you, of course). And WP:NCROY is not policy anyway. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, your comments contravene WP:AT policy. It has been explained how: your interpretation of WP:RECOGNIZABLE does not match what WP:RECOGNIZABLE says. WP:RECOGNIZABLE is about readers familiar with the subject recognizing that the article is about that subject. It is not about defining the subject to a person who knows nothing about it. You have not disputed that explanation. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Surtsicna: If the amendment to the guideline yields RMs that are too contentious to muster clear support, then I'd take that as a sign that the amendment may need to be revisited. Guidelines are most successful when they build upward from what we agree works best, and in this case I'm not seeing a lot of agreement that removing the "of England" works best. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Huwmanbeing, the amendment to the guideline is the result of an RfC that was explicitly based on the RMs that have taken place over the past decade, that have led to titles such as Elizabeth I, Edward VI, Henry VIII, Elizabeth II, etc; Louis XIV, Louis XV, Louis XVI, etc; Carl XVI Gustaf, Gustaf V, etc; Juan Carlos I, Alfonso XII, Felipe VI, etc; and, just this month, Wilhelm II and Harald V, Olav V, Haakon VII, etc. The guideline is being built upward from over a decade of community consensus. And I can guarantee to you that these articles are never going back to the lengthy form. Once you chop off the unnecessary disambiguation, it is difficult to convince people to put it back in. It does not even matter whether the moves proposed here succeed now; the policy is constant and the trend of matching royal biographies with it is steady. They will get there now or soon enough. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficult, but not impossible, as you know, having sneakily moved Eystein I of Norway and Eystein II of Norway from the titles they arrived at after RMs earlier this year. You also ignore all the RMs that have failed over the years, including ones recently for Victor Emmanuel III of Italy and Vasily I of Moscow, plus also Franz Joseph I of Austria and Louis IX of France. —Srnec (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment: relisting for clearer consensus, notifying wikiprojects Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Vital articles has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject England has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject London has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Given the above, 'Edward I' does not need to be further disambiguated with a territorial designation according to WP:NCROY, as it is the WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and WP:PRECISE. If the same is true of the other articles listed then they should be moved. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The ODNB uses plain "Edward I" because it focusses solely on historical figures from the UK, though, which would be reflected in using - well - British sources. What we want here is a WP:WORLDVIEW. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The titles of the sources in the ODNB bibliography were created independently of the context of the dictionary, so their exclusive use of ‘Edward I’ without territorial designation is quite persuasive. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

text: To add to the above, the 'additional reading' in the Encyclopedia Britannica article is much the same, and a Jstor search produces many 'Edward I' articles but far fewer with 'Edward I of England' in the title. It's possible that there are thousands of sources which use 'of England' that I'm not picking up on, but I don't think it's very likely. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: WORLDVIEW such as Richard II being called Richard II by the national dictionaries of biography of Germany, Croatia, Norway,, Ireland, Italy? This is not about a world view. This is about forcing consistency against policy at the expense of reason. The insistence that Wikipedia should know better than ODNB, Britannica, and Shakespeare is mind-blowing. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the same method, I can show that Henry II is unambiguous and that Louis XII isn't. In short, it doesn't work. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The dictionaries were not cited to prove or disprove ambiguity. Surtsicna (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth bearing in mind that, according to WP:CRITERIA, only reliable English-language sources need to be considered when choosing an article title. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose per Tim O'Doherty. History6042 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As pointed out above, Tim O'Doherty's rationale relies upon a faulty reading of WP:NCROY, which says that "of England" should only be added when disambiguation is needed. See point 3 under the section "Sovereigns". – bradv 23:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of this. History6042 (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Tim O'Doherty's reading was not "faulty". Tim O'Doherty's reading was an equally correct interpretation of NCROY. Your interpretation is also correct. We disagree, because guideline/policy is ambiguous and "unnecessary disambiguation" is not a well-defined thick black line. But then again, you've disagreed with me in every discussion we've had, so I'll leave it there. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Agreed. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @GoodDay @A.D.Hope - I've gone ahead and put a in closure request at WP:CR. Hopefully we can get someone uninvolved to close this soon. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, estar8806. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And thanks to Tim O'Doherty for reverting the WP:SUPERVOTE close by someone deeply involved in this topic at a previous RfC and lately at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#RfC: How should articles on sovereigns of current European monarchies be (re)titled?; that was a good revert.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

text: They are listed at the WikiProject pages and at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Now, if only we could get the RMs to slow down. Let one close, before opening another one. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 November 2023 

message: It's been nearly 3 weeks now. 'Bout time for this RM to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @GoodDay @A.D.Hope - I've gone ahead and put a in closure request at WP:CR. Hopefully we can get someone uninvolved to close this soon. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, estar8806. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And thanks to Tim O'Doherty for reverting the WP:SUPERVOTE close by someone deeply involved in this topic at a previous RfC and lately at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#RfC: How should articles on sovereigns of current European monarchies be (re)titled?; that was a good revert.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

text: They are listed at the WikiProject pages and at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Now, if only we could get the RMs to slow down. Let one close, before opening another one. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Close

message: As noted on Eleanor of Castile, the statue featured at :File:Edward I of England and Eleanor of Castile, Lincoln Cathedral.jpg was missing its heads and renovated in the nineteenth century. It would seem that it is not at all certain that it was originally meant to be of Eleanor and Edward, I've found references to the restoration and its controversy, but nothing to say that when it was remodelled, the intention was to depict Eleanor and Edward (which everyone seems to accept!). If kept, it should probably explain that the heads are nineteenth century conjectures made on the assumption that the statues were intended to be of the pair. Jim Killock (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of "Eleanor and Edward" 

message: Hi all, as mentioned above, I've put the page in for FA review so we can take another look at Welsh and Irish scholarship on Edward I, and perhaps review what is there about Scotland, Eleanor and a few other matters. I hope to put some work into this myself but especially given the lack of response or active editors here feel that I need some guidance making edits in these areas, some of which are less familiar to me. Jim Killock (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added possible material from Welsh scholarship to the review for checking, if anyone wants to take a look. Jim Killock (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

text: The opening of his tomb by the Arch. Society should be fleshed out somewhat - a couple of lines about the reasoning for this would be helpful. 2603:6080:21F0:6000:6125:E89E:5017:DD82 (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA review 

message: I added some additional background on the war. Further cites are available via link if the ones already provided on Edward don't go into enough detail (most are from Morris & Google's blocked access) but the improved linksAdolf, King of the Germans, instead of unlinked king of Germans or Guy, Count of Flanders, instead of a link to the landing page for Counts of Flandersshould be kept in any case.
Moreover, the expense of the war is mentioned but not the mess that happened because of it. Edward and Philip both provoked the church by levying additional taxes on its lands; Philip's feud led directly to , , and the Avignon Papacy and the aftermath is what led to Philip going after his kingdom's Jews and the Templars. Edward's troubles with Winchelsey are mentioned but several paragraphs down. It'd be better if there were a linked bit in the article connecting down to it and if there was more context for the bulls:  was primarily in reference to Philip (or Philip & Edward together) and  was entirely in response to Philip's embargo on precious metals & stones leaving France at the same time a Colonna uprising was pushing on Papal finances and not anything Edward was doing to his local clergy. — LlywelynII 05:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks @LlywelynII I will add this to the list of issues at the current Featured article review. It would be great if you could point to some sources or suggest what needs to be added, at that review page. Jim Killock (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Nice to hear. I got pulled into a tangent creating an article for a source that got mentioned but am trying to improve the Gascon War stuff there. Hopefully will have as good a set of sources as are available without academic access to Brill & co. and'll try to remember to bring over some here. It's already so good though, I kinda wanna let you guys do it instead of getting into an edit war over small stuff: The connection downward (eg) could just be a short note and #hashtag link but maybe some of the local editors dislike 'em. Etc. — LlywelynII 04:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @LlywelynII FA Review is helpful for avoiding edit conflicts as we're passing the changes through a review and discussing them before applying them. Brill is on WP library's list, anything sourced through WPL should be fine.  I'm fine working from sources you suggest if you don't want to make your suggestions there, but I think you could otherwise check or suggest what is missing as it would be new to me; I've also quite a lot else to work through, Edward and Ireland / Scotland are in a similar position of needing a review; the "British Isles" historiographical perspective is also on the list. Jim Killock (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gascon War]]