Talk:Rule of the Major-Generals

message: Do forgive me if I'm wrong, but 'Major-General' in plurality is 'Majors-General', just like 'mothers in-law' and 'justices of the peace'.
:Wikipedia's own page on English plurals states that 'Major-Generals' is the commonly-used plural, even if it is technically 'incorrect'. I will change the instances of 'Majors-General' to 'Major-Generals' in this article accordingly (and to correlate with the title, which uses 'Major-Generals' while the article uses 'Majors-General'). Terraxos 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I though it only applied to nouns: Governors General, whereas the "Major" in Major-General is adjectival. Am putting a citation tag in English plurals. StAnselm (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're talking about common usage. There is such a word as 'widowered', but nobody ever uses it. A man is still described as 'widowed'. Valetude (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Major-General" in plurality is "Majors-General" 

message: I have deleted the article and recreated it without commersial copyright problems.
Because Wikipedia Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License allows commercial distribution, but the current licence used by the British Civil War website is Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which places a restriction "Non-Commercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes." which the Wikipedia license does not.
Providing the requirements of the Terms of Use and WP:plagiarism are met there is no reason why information from the British Civil War website can not be summarised and and cited like any other copyright text. But it can not be copied under its copyleft licence into Wikipedia articles because its licence is more restrictive than the Wikipedia licence.
The text I put back was in the article before but it was all text which I added in the case of "each governed by a Major-General whom answered to the Lord Protector." a paraphrase of one from the Plant article. --PBS (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problems 

message: The article lede notes "England was divided into 11 regions". However, the article body goes on to identify a total of 12 regions; 10 are listed in the table proper, plus Ireland and Scotland listed in the paragraph above the table. I'm changing the lede to say "ten". Rhialto (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Rhialto: Well spotted. The number was 10, it was changed to 11 in May 2013 by 70.180.101.67 — almost certainly an act of vandalism. -- PBS (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Many Regions? 

message: The effects on daily living seem to be summarised in just a few lines. Could we have some more details about these restrictions on entertainment (there's no mention of theatre, for example), and the nature of the public protests? Valetude (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact on everyday life 

message: The article states "Like Cromwell, the Major Generals were committed Puritans" however the "Like Cromwell" part is incorrect as Cromwell was not a Puritan. From 1629 Cromwell, as much of the New Model Army, were famously Independents, not Puritans.
The idea that Cromwell was a Puritan comes from Victorian Whig history, and is no longer supported by historians, notably Robert Paul and Colin Davis.
I am even unsure if the majority of the major-generals were Puritan, as it was definitely the case in the Third Protectorate Parliament that they were more moderate Presbyterians although I can't say for certain. Sourdoughsiam (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cromwell as a Puritan