Talk:Murrough O'Brien, 1st Earl of Inchiquin

Copyleft problems

I have deleted this article and recreated it as a stub.

This is 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. -- PBS (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

DNB

Here is a OCR version of the DNB it can be found in volume XLI pages 320–327. The will need cleaning up before any of it is added to this article. --PBS (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikisource:Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900 Wikisource:Dictionary of National Biography raw OCR and image of volume XLI page 320 --PBS (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sections

This template was place in the article by user:Phoe 01:09, 28 November 2009:

I have moved this maintenance template to the talk page as editorial discussions ought be on the talk page and not in the article -- that is what talk pages are for. --PBS (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, while additional explanations to a maintenance template should of course always be placed on the talk page, the template itself is generally to be placed on the article itself, what applies for this one too (please see also {{Sections}}, Wikipedia:Lead_section#Elements_of_the_lead and Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup). ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 11:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If an inexperienced editor were to place a comment at the top of an article that said "This article should be divided into sections by topic, to make it more accessible. Please help by adding section headings in accordance with Wikipedia's style guidelines." it would either be deleted or moved to the talk page. Why does placing such a comment in a box justify placing it on the article page? It is an editorial comment that is of no direct benefit to the reader of the article -- unlike {{unreferenced}} where the large text is of use to readers. (see Wikipedia_talk:Template standardisation/article#Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page) --PBS (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the link. I agree that for readers not familiar with Wikipedia tags placed on the article page are probably confusing and additionally plaster the text. I however think also, that if the tags were to be placed on the talk page, they would generally be overseen and the respective issues would be ignored. I assume that nothing came about after the discussion in your link, so perhaps would not be a Wikipedia:Requests for comment the best way for you to either change or confirm policy or even find another solution, would it? ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor battles

There are a number of red links in this article that link to minor battles that have yet to be written. It would be useful if stubs could be created for them as they could be linked to the biographies the opposing commanders and it would help tie the articles together. -- PBS (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, there are many battles from this period that could do with articles.

One thing I should mention is that the battle of Glascarrick, mentioned in this article, is the same as the Battle of Arklow (1649). Perhaps Glascarrick is the more correct name, in which case the Battle of Arklow (1649) article may require a few small modifications.

I have written up an article on the 1643 battle of Castlelyons elsewhere, in future I may do a wikipedia article based on this one when I get a chance. Inchiquin (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Address faulty

something wrong with the address as I can't link to it Stephen Blackpool (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The Dublin Government

The Kingdom of Ireland existed from 1542 until 1800. There was no such thing as the Dublin Government!Ériugena (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Ériugena. You are of course right, Ireland was a kingdom at Murrough's time. However I would think there was also an Irish government in Dublin and from 1642 to 1649 another Irish government in Kilkenny against which Murrough fought. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but it was the 'Kingdom of Ireland Government', not the 'Dublin Government'...Dublin was not a State or a Kingdom!Ériugena (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Ériugena. Oh, now I see. We do of course say thinks like the Weimar Republic or the Vichy Government, but you are right perhaps this is out of place in the lead, which should be careful and formal. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Family tree sources

@user:Johannes Schade With this edit Revision as of 19:02, 10 August 2022 AFAICT you changed the source in the citation. Why did you do that? -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear PBS. I added the family tree on 10 August 2022. I must have started off with some family tree copied over from another biography. Some event must have forced me to save hastily at 15:25 when the tree was in fact not finished. Probably my family needed me for something. I should not have saved it in such a state. I should have saved the code somewhere and abandoned the edit, probably I was a bit lazy or was hurried on. I finished the tree later that day and saved it at 19:02. Regarding the references, I replaced Cokayne (1896) with Cokayne (1929), because I have been criticised for using sources that are too old. I hope this helps. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)