Talk:Gunpowder Plot/Archive 5

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (February 2018)
Archive 1Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Grammar in lead

In the lead, I have a problem with the following sentence: "The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of England's Parliament on 5 November 1605, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, was to be installed as the Catholic head of state."

"during which .... was to be" seems like bad grammar. I suggest changing "was to be" to "would be" so the sentence reads: "The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of England's Parliament on 5 November 1605, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, would be installed as the Catholic head of state." Akld guy (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Jesuit?

In the section "Undercroft", Anne Vaux is described as a Jesuit. Only males can become Jesuits, so the label is inappropriate and should be changed to "Catholic", which is appropriate. Akld guy (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I've changed that. Although there must be a reason it was Jesuit in the first place, I'll check my sources. Parrot of Doom 07:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Akld guy (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"Reaction" - three changes

In the section "Reaction", I've made the following three changes: Changed spelling of "Walter Ralegh" to "Walter Raleigh" (despite wrong spelling, it had been correctly redirected to the "Walter Raleigh" page). Linked "Main Plot" to its page (the unlinked state gave an entirely erroneous meaning to the sentence). Changed "...declared he had no knowledge of the conspiracy." to "...declared he had had no knowledge of the conspiracy." Akld guy (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Spelling wasn't standardised back then and Raleigh/Ralegh used different versions of his name. The author this article uses as its main source uses "Ralegh", so I simply copied the style she used. Parrot of Doom 07:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I acknowledge the non-standardisation of the time, but there was quite a discussion on the Walter Raleigh Talk page where the consensus was that he should be listed as "Walter Raleigh". That consensus has endured. My change was simply an attempt to introduce conformity between this page and that one. Akld guy (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That's fair enough, to be honest I'm not really that bothered about it, using Ralegh just seemed like the appropriate thing to do considering the source material. Perhaps, around 1605, he used the Ralegh spelling. I don't know. If enough people weighed in on the matter I wouldn't object to a change, he's only mentioned in passing. Parrot of Doom 11:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected

I have full-protected the article for three days to prevent an imminent edit war. I'll go and have a look at the substance now; but I will say that generally speaking, considerable latitude should be given to the editors who did the hard work of improving the article to featured status in the first place. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"more than sufficient"

@Parrot of Doom: Call it what you want, but "more than sufficient" is not logically equivalent to "enough", and "more than sufficient" is what the sources have been saying. This was even done by Fawkes on purpose. I'm open to rewording what I inserted, but not the strictly weaker statement "enough".--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Parrot of Doom 20:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Parrot of Doom: And why, if I may ask? Note that if Fawkes had used just enough, it would be called "enough" but not "more than enough", which clearly establishes the logical inequivalence. "more than enough" implies "enough" but not the other way around. This source and others clearly imply Fawkes used more than enough. Yes, the way I worded it was perhaps a bit too awkward, but not the logical content.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gunpowder Plot. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gunpowder Plot. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gunpowder Plot. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)