Talk:Robert Catesby

message: I've tidied things up a bit and added in subheadings.
The article is very light on details about the gunpowder plot itself? surely this should be the main focus of the article. If anyone has any info please add.
I also notice the lack of citations?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robkirby007 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up

message: The  link to Henry Morgan does not appear to be right.   The Admiral Morgan linked does not appear to be the same fellow who died with Catesby.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.200.223 (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about Henry Morgan 

message: He was a Catholic  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.141.83 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry Morgan

message: The lead is too brief and I think Guy Fawkes needs to be mentioned in the lead as well. His place of birth does not need to be in the lead but I think a mention of Parliament and King James should be there.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article will probably look very different in a week's time.  I tend to write lead sections only once the body has been sorted out. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that's an excellent idea. That way you highlight the key parts after they've already been placed in the main body of the article. It's a pity there is so little info on him compared to Guy, his more colourful co-conspirator.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Everard Digby is the one that I find interesting, it seems he had a great deal of public sympathy at the time. Parrot of Doom 13:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you know if he was related to Jane Digby?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't, sorry, but if I find he was I'll let you know. Parrot of Doom 15:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I created an article on Mabel Digby, who was related by birth and marriage to the Irish FitzGerald dynasty. The Digbys have been quite notable throughout English history.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead too brief

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Robert Catesby's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ODNB Thomas Wintour":
From Guy Fawkes:  
From Gunpowder Plot:  
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Robert Catesby]] 

message: Before I'm forced to delve into my books to check for mistakes, is there any merit to these changes? Parrot of Doom 18:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't check all of the date changes before I reverted, but certainly the Earl of Essex's rebellion didn't take place in 1602, so no reason to suppose any of the other changes were any more accurate. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And a lazy check of the ONDB agrees with this article's claim for Catesby's birthdate.  Unless the IP who made the changes comes here, I'll not bother checking.  I've too much to do.  In case you're wondering, I've had a mad busy summer of work so haven't done much here.  I still want to do something on the practice of burning heretics and traitors, but haven't come across the right source material. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes 

message: I tagged "Catesby and Percy were reportedly both dropped by a single lucky shot, while standing near the door." as dubious for obvious reasons; impossible to ascertain after four centuries and local lore (hence "reportedly") is inherently questionable. Quis separabit? 17:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why "reportedly" is used - because that is what was reported.  Much of what is written about the Plot is supposition, including the details of who met who and where and why.  We only have the survivors' accounts to rely on, and even they aren't particularly reliable. Parrot of Doom 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious tag

message: Anyone have a problem with the sentence "James exiled all Jesuits and other Catholic priests, and reimposed the collection of fines for recusancy"? It's been in the article a while, and it's in other articles too, so I assume it's fine. A shorter version will be in the TFA on the 5th. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meddlesome priests 

message: The Notes sub-section doesn't contain any references, so it doesn't belong in a section called References. And there's no point in having another sub-section called Footnotes, because the notes are also footnotes. Richard75 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish - it was in the format commonly used used on many FAs and dozens of other articles. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it's a stupid format. But if it's in common usage then I'll leave it. But you could be more polite. Richard75 (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Calling out Kit Harington as a notable relative seems a bit weird for someone who likely has over 100,000 living collateral descendant; chances are he has descendants more notable than Harington. It may be better to title the section "Fictional portrayals" unless we have strong reason to believe there are not notable direct descendants, nor more notable collateral descendants. PoisonedPigeon (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable relatives?