Talk:Sir Henry Tichborne

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sir Henry Tichborne article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force

Pro-English language[edit]

This article is written from the English perspective, apparently largely drawn from the highly biased Dictionary of National Biography of 1885-1900. Fighting on the side of the English Royalists or Parliamentarians is presented as heroic, and his role in the conquest, colonization, and pacification of the Irish is downplayed. I have made a few edits to try to make the article more balanced, but it would be good to get some Irish sources to make it more WP:NPOV. --Macrakis (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- My own contributions are certainly not written from ann English point of view (I'm not English!). Whether "heroic" or not, the side you choose and whether you win or lose, are facts like any other, Of course some Irish sources would be useful. Chrisdoyleorwell (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First stab at tryng to put the oppposite point of view. There is certainly a lot to be said against him. Chrisdoyleorwell (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change of citation style[edit]

Dear User:Chrisdoyleorwell, dear User:Macrakis, I propose to change the article's citation style from the quite informal <ref>free-formatted descriptive text</ref> to short citations in the text with a source list below giving long descriptions. Both would use templates to ensure completeness and uniformity. {{Sfn}} for the inline citation and {{Cite book}} (and similar) for the source list. As prescribed in WP:CITEVAR I ask you as the foremost contributors for approval. Please allow this. With many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC) Yes I agree Chrisdoyleorwell (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get very excited about changing the citation style when the substance of the citations is such a mess. The current footnote 5 is some sort of hybrid between free-form and structured reference. Footnote 7 is incomplete (maybe it just needs an s.v., but that's unclear). Footnote 8 is grossly incomplete. Footnote 9 is basically just a URL with no bibliographic info. etc etc.

Just pouring the current bad references into sfn and cite book templates won't improve anything. Someone has to actually do the bibliographic work to verify and complete these references.

The other problem with cite book and the like is that they are hard to use for anything but the most straightforward cases.

So... if we first clean up the existing references, verifying them and making them complete, then I don't care whether the article uses the current format or the sfn + cite xxx templates. But if we don't, we're just putting lipstick on a pig. --Macrakis (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just wow! Thanks, @Johannes Schade:, for your work on the citations! No longer a pig! --Macrakis (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]