Talk:Guy Fawkes Night: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:02, 1 August 2015 editScolaire (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,739 edits →Survey: Option 2← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:02, 6 November 2024 edit undoAnomieBOT (talk \| contribs)Bots6,585,700 edits Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2024-11-05. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger
(482 intermediate revisions by 99 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~Skip~~ ~~to talk~~}}		{{Talk header}}
	{{~~talkheader~~}}		{{British English}}
			{{Article history
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=GAN		\|action1=GAN
	\|action1date=10:07, 26 November 2010		\|action1date=10:07, 26 November 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\|action2result=promoted		\|action2result=promoted
	\|action2oldid=410298326		\|action2oldid=410298326
			\|ftname=Gunpowder Plot

	\|action3=FAC		\|action3=FAC
Line 20:		Line 21:
	\|action3oldid=433250115		\|action3oldid=433250115

			\|currentstatus=FA
	\|ftname=Gunpowder Plot
			\|maindate=November 5, 2017
	\|topic=Social sciences and society		\|topic=Social sciences and society
			\|otd1date=2004-11-05\|otd1oldid=7151063
	\|currentstatus=FA
			\|otd2date=2005-11-05\|otd2oldid=27475403
			\|otd3date=2006-11-05\|otd3oldid=85839096
			\|otd4date=2007-11-05\|otd4oldid=169313256
			\|otd5date=2008-11-05\|otd5oldid=249663930
			\|otd6date=2009-11-05\|otd6oldid=324096465
			\|otd7date=2010-11-05\|otd7oldid=395055910
			\|otd8date=2011-11-05\|otd8oldid=459210173
			\|otd9date=2012-11-05\|otd9oldid=521467802
			\|otd10date=2013-11-05\|otd10oldid=580125403
			\|otd11date=2014-11-05\|otd11oldid=632408337
			\|otd12date=2015-11-05\|otd12oldid=689162324
			\|otd13date=2016-11-05\|otd13oldid=747829888
			\|otd14date=2018-11-05\|otd14oldid=867426603
			\|otd15date=2019-11-05\|otd15oldid=924744549
			\|otd16date=2020-11-05\|otd16oldid=987187979
			\|otd17date=2021-11-05\|otd17oldid=1053451473
			\|otd18date=2022-11-05\|otd18oldid=1119710433
			\|otd19date=2023-11-05\|otd19oldid=1183677501
			\|otd20date=2024-11-05\|otd20oldid=1255595620
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=yes\|class=FA\|1=
			{{WikiProject England\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Holidays\|importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=mid\|Interfaith=yes}}
			}}
			{{banner holder\|collapsed=yes\|
			{{top 25 report\|November 3, 2013\|November 2, 2014\|November 1, 2015}}
			{{Old moves
			\| collapse = false
			\| list =
			* RM, Guy Fawkes Night → Bonfire Night, '''Withhdrawn''', 30 July 2015, ]
			* RM, Guy Fawkes Night → Bonfire Night in the United Kingdom, '''No consensus''', 15 February 2023, ]
	}}		}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject England\|class=FA\|importance=Top}}
	{{WPReligion\|class=FA\|importance=\|Interfaith=yes\|InterfaithImp=}}
	{{WikiProject Holidays\|class=\|importance=}}
	}}		}}
	{{OnThisDay\|date1=2004-11-05\|oldid1=7151063\|date2=2005-11-05\|oldid2=27475403\|date3=2006-11-05\|oldid3=85839096\|date4=2007-11-05\|oldid4=169313256\|date5=2008-11-05\|oldid5=249663930\|date6=2009-11-05\|oldid6=324096465\|date7=2010-11-05\|oldid7=395055910\|date8=2011-11-05\|oldid8=459210173\|date9=2012-11-05\|oldid9=521467802\|date10=2013-11-05\|oldid10=580125403\|date11=2014-11-05\|oldid11=632408337}}
	{{British-English}}
	{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis		{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
	\|archiveprefix=Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/~~Archives/~~		\|archiveprefix=Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive
	\|format=%%i		\|format= %%i
	\|age=~~2190~~		\|age=2160\|<!--90 days-->
	\|minkeepthreads=3		\|minkeepthreads=4
			\|header={{automatic archive navigator}}
	\|index=yes
	\|maxarchsize=~~75000~~		\|maxarchsize=100000
	\|numberstart=1		\|numberstart=9
			}}
	\|archivebox=yes
	\|box-advert=no}}
	__FORCETOC__

			== The use of the word conspiracy. ==
	==Should there be a featured article review?==
	Perhaps the first step could be a ] to bring up the known shortcomings of this article. -- ] (]) 22:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	: What is being reviewed is an interesting question - is this a history of the Gunpowder Plot, a history of Guy Fawkes night, a key article that links on to the others, or a bit of all? ] (]) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::See ] and the areas where this featured article fails. The chief one ins "1.b comprehensive". But that leads to all sorts of other ones in that list (such as "2.a"). At the time this was promoted to FA status, "1.e stability" was not met (see ]. That was ignored and stability is still an issue as can be seen in the edit history of the last 24 hours. -- ] (]) 10:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

			I notice the word conspiracy in the start of the article. This words strikes me with a different resonance since the pandemic. I notice the article was last edited 3 days ago? But why? It is long history, how can that change?
	:::Yes there should be a review. The history of this talk page indicates that what little stability the article has, is merely the result of potential editors being 'warned off' from even attempting to edit by an entrenched cabal. From what I gleaned from the original FA review, the principal assessor seemed to ignore many cogent points and had the erroneous view that objections to content, or lack of content, could only be based on objections to sources. ] (]) 10:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:This article is perfectly stable, it's just a few cake-obsessed editors who think otherwise. Is this in an attempt to assert your own POV? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 11:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::I have been involved in moderating a good deal of, mostly nationalistic, POV peddling. Please look at the history of the ] article, where you will see the correct method of coping with this. Armenian nationalists have added material supporting an Armenian origin for the Byzantine emperor, did I do as PoD always does - revert with an added insulting comment? No, I let anything with a decent reference stand and I merely add something moderating it from an equally good reference. This is called "not owning an article" - something yourself and PoD seem incapable of. ] (]) 12:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Like your friend PoD you quickly reach the level of crass insult. Have a look at a really stable FA, such as ] whose talkpage has 2 archives, this travesty's talkpage has 9 archives! A lot of people obviously have issues with it. The instability of the page is a self-evident and established fact. Go back and try to come up with more logical arguments. ] (]) 11:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::{{U\|Cassianto}}'s comment is an extraordinary statement which should be withdrawn. Of course the article is "stable", when any substantive (and referenced) changes to the article are immediately reverted by its custodian(s). The long-standing disputes over the content of this article should never have allowed it to become a FA in the first place. Many of us have, I am sure, given up on the article, in view of the needless acrimony on this talk page. Unfortunately, all the evidence is that an FA review is utterly pointless if the same editors are going to be involved. But, an ''independent'' review, to assess whether it actually meets the needs of readers looking for a ''comprehensive'' overview of the celebration, is long overdue. ] (]) 11:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::If it wasn't for the "custodians" then this article would be filled with factoids and deteriorate beyond all recognition. Also, you don't need to ping me I have watch listed it. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 12:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::If the "owners of this article" relaxed their control a little they would get input from many experienced and talented editors, which would produce an article that truly reflected the actuality of an ongoing folk-celebration. As it stands now it is unrepresentative, turgid and biased. ] (]) 12:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::For what its worth I've added ] to the 'See Also' of the present Gunpowder Plot template. ] (]) 12:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Thankfully Urselius your opinion counts for nothing. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 13:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Then your opinion and that of other "PoD-U-Likes" is equally nugatory. Misplaced Pages is a co-operative venture where all opinions, if they are reasonable, count equally. You seem not to understand this, and it is simple enough. ] (]) 13:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::Cassianto, please try and be civil when replying to other editors. ] (]) 16:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::I'll ''try'' sure, but in light of the idiocy that is currently going on here, I can't make any promises. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 18:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::@]: The article has not been stable for years as is evident from the talk pages and the edit history as demonstrated over the last 48 hours. I notice that on your user page until recently you said you live in Essex and that "I often take part in peer reviews and frequently review at FAC." This article is titled "Guy Fawkes Night" it is not titled "history of Guy Fawkes Night" do you think that a featured article review would end with a consensus that this article adequately covers the subject? For example do you think that an American or Australian would know if bonfire night is still widely celebrated in England? Do you know if the statement in the lead "Halloween, has lately increased in popularity, and according to some writers, may threaten the continued observance of 5 November." is true for New Zealand? -- ] (]) 20:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I don't know what relevance my residence has to do with this article, or the fact that I take part in reviews? I would expect to find "History" of Guy Fawkes Night within the first sub-section of THIS article and not, like you incorrectly say, in a separate article. For the same reason as to why I would think it stupid to have "Remeberence Day" separate to "History of Remeberence Day". '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::The relevancy of your residency is your knowledge of the subject that you would probably not have if you came from Georgia. I am sorry if my words were not clear, but I did not say that the history was in a separate article, instead I emphasised what the title was. The question I asked (given you knowledge of the subject outside of the article and you knowledge of reviews), was would a featured article review of this article be likely to end with a consensus that this article adequately covers the subject? I then asked two subsidiary questions. I look forward to you answers. -- ] (]) 21:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::There's only one way to find out and that is to take it to FAR if you wish. However, I would embrace Sandy's comments above and think very carefully before you do. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 21:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

			I wonder when, in which edit, the word conspiracy appeared in the description. ] (]) 23:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
	How is a Featured Article review instigated? It is long overdue here. ] (]) 13:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

			:'Conspiracy' has a defined meaning and is definitely applicable to a plot involving multiple people to assassinate a king. A provable conspiracy is not the same as a conspiracy theory. ] (]) 12:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
	:Just go to ] and follow the instructions you'll find there. ] ] 13:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: I saw this little spat at Bencherlite's talk ... Urselius, you should be aware that FAR is not ]. ] (]) 23:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::I am aware of that. There are genuine problems with this article that a number of editors, administrators among them, have commented upon. It is on this basis that any FA review would be instigated. I am considering taking action against PoD's unwarranted personal attacks on myself, though this is an entirely separate matter procedurally. ] (]) 08:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::: @] do you consider yourself neutral regarding whether this article is or is not a FA? Two central issues raised from the list of ] when this article was was promoted were stability and comprehensiveness. Neither of these criteria were met at the time or have ever been met since. Why do you think that this article given FA status when those two issues were not addressed? Recently for an example of ''high-quality'' has been "misunderstood, mis-applied, or 'used as a bludgeon'" see ]. -- ] (]) 11:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::: Yes, I do consider myself neutral: the article was promoted by {{u\|Karanacs}}. The derailed and personalized discussion on the FAC indicates precisely why I am reminding here that FAR is not dispute resolution: should the same editors who disrupted the FAC without bringing actionable issues relative to the criteria raise a FAR without (again) addressing actionable items and instead resorting to personalization, the result will not be productive. FAR is not dispute resolution. The FAC was derailed by editors bringing personal matters and without focusing on ]; some of the same editors are again doing the same here. And no, this is not an example of the issue you raised at WIAFA talk; this was and is an example of editors not applying the criteria and personalizing a discussion. Please initiate an RFC for that purpose. ] (]) 13:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::: You were the person asserting that the only objection to a FA candidate was objection to its sources. I could write an impeccably sourced article on the American celebration of Thanksgiving and completely omit any mention of turkey-eating, would such an article be complete? Would such an article be worthy of FA status? Additionally, do you approve of editors who block the addition of well-sourced material to certain articles because they have their own agendas and or prejudices? ] (]) 14:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::: Urselius, you seem to have a habit of taking discussions off-topic. Please review ]. I would never say "that the only objection to a FA candidate was objection to its sources". I have no opinion one way or another on this article: I do have an opinion on editors who don't appropriately engage FAC, FAR and ]. ] (]) 14:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::: I quote your good self Sandy, taken directly from the record of the FAC: "...there is no point in trying to determine what direction an article should take without first examining what is supported by sources. As of now, there are no talk page archives, but I find no evidence anywhere that anyone objecting to the article has done it based on sources. Anything short of that has no place here at FAC; please keep disruption out of the FAC and focus on sources." ] (]) 15:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::@] you wrote above "The FAC was derailed by editors bringing personal matters and without focusing on What is a featured article; some of the same editors are again doing the same here". In which way was the FAC derailed? What do you think were the personal matters which were raised and which editors are doing the same here? -- ] (]) 18:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

			== Julian to Gregorian date conversion ==
	I just reread the FAC page, the article, and what's currently on this talk page (didn't go through the archives) to refresh my memory. Has anything changed since the article was promoted? It looks like ] was created as an article and kept rather than redirected/merged here. (Nb: I think it's poor practice to include a link to another article in the "also known as" line of the lead. It would be much more appropriate to include a sentence later in the lead and in the body of the article stating that modern celebrations are often known more as Bonfire Night, with the link there). Have any new high-quality sources been published that dispute what's in the article? If not much has changed in terms of scholarship and article content, then it is highly unlikely that an FAR would change the status quo. It's not a place to rehash previous arguments. ] (]) 14:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

			Since the gunpowder plot was listed on an old-style Julian calendar date, shouldn't a new-style Gregorian date be listed (in brackets) as well? ] (]) 15:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::The sources are not the problem, please address the real problem, which is lack of comprehensiveness. Please do not hold up the shibboleth of "sources", it is entirely irrelevant! Of course there are perfectly reliable sources available to use to fill in the huge gaps in the present article's comprehensiveness. I have shown one below. It is from a specialist journal and as such has higher credibility than the works of Antonia Fraser, much quoted in the present article. Antonia Fraser is a historian but she is also a populist historical biographer, her works cannot be held to be more academically acceptable than material from a specialist journal. ] (]) 08:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

			:Could be mentioned, for the benefit of Western European readers as the Continent (outside Eastern Orthodox Christendom) used the Gregorian calendar. However the date was not moved when Britain joined the Gregorian calendar in 1752, as it continued to be held on 5th November on the new calendar system.] (]) 08:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::"Have any new high-quality sources been published that dispute what's in the article?" - to my knowledge, no. This article was written to reflect the coverage offered by several expert authors. I have repeatedly asked any editors who object to this structure to find other, expert sources that place as much emphasis on the modern celebration as the existing authors place on its history. To date, not one of those editors has done this. They have searched the internet and found the usual odds and ends, but nothing that suggests that Cressy, Fraser or Sharpe have been remiss in their treatment of 5 November. It remains my view therefore that the items these editors would like included are trivial by nature, and that triviality has no place in any article on Misplaced Pages. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 18:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::I'd just like to add that ] has found a new source, published in 2013, that I was unaware of. This at least explains the event's relevance in foreign countries using a proper context, so I may well buy this book to see what I can learn from it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::High quality material was available at the time of the FAC, it just did not fit in with your POV peddling. Fraser is a populist historical biographer, not an academic, she has never held an academic post. She also spelled the name of a relative of mine wrongly in one of her books! ] (]) 08:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	::The problem is not the sources used, it has never been the problem. The problem is that the article as it stands in incomplete. It does not cover recent and modern practices to any appreciable extent. This would in itself not be a particular problem except that some editors, including PoD, will not allow anyone to add material to the article to remedy this deficit. There are many fine and reputable published sources available, I have a number on my computer right now, but I cannot use them because anything I add to the article will be reverted. This is the problem not what sources were used to write what is here already - what is here already is just not sufficient for an encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. ] (]) 15:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::@] as a non-Brit I think that the content of the current article may have confused you. The article is titled "Guy Fawkes Night" under the provisions of ] section ] "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." The most common name for "Guy Fawkes Night" in England is "Bonfire Night" <small>(see these simple global searches but not of reliable sources -- but they do show it is one event with two common names)</small> but as that name is also used for other events in other English speaking countries it is perfectly acceptable to choose "Guy Fawkes Night" as an alternative and at the time of the FAC process (initiated on 1 May 2011 and promoted by you on 9 June 2011) the page Bonfire Night was a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page by Nikkimaria unilaterally and without prior discussion on 7 July 2011‎ from "Bonfire night" to ] (and IMO that move needs to be reverted). At the time you promoted this article not one of the issues over the criteria I had raised at the FAC had been discussed in the FAC process. The chief one was and is "1.b comprehensive". But that leads to all sorts of other ones in that list (such as "2.a"). Also at the time this was promoted to FA status "1.e stability" was an issue, (one editor had repeatedly breached the 3RR rule over the preceding months), why did you ignore that criteria? -- ] (]) 18:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::I'm a pretty well-read non-Brit :) I cannot comment on my thought process of almost 4 years ago (I've slept since then!), but I will say that there appeared to be consensus at FAC that the article was comprehensive. The stability criteria is usually invoked when the article is massively changing from the beginning of the FAC nomination to the end (text being added or removed). The appearance of the article did not change much during this particular FAC nomination. The article today also reflects what it was when originally promoted. That tells me it has been pretty stable. I suspect there are compromises that could take place here to partially satisfy both parties (leave out the trivia, add a line about where 5 Nov is still celebrated with Bonfires, and call it day), but I am have not read the sources. I've been involved in my own set of disputes on topics like this, and I know it's difficult to provide the correct balance. Good luck, gentlemen! ] (]) 18:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::The issue is that some people think the narrative constructed by those experts who do know something about this topic, whose research I have summarised here, is incorrect. They think their own views are more important than the experts and they will not listen to reason. I have been defending this article against this idiocy for years. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 22:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::No Parrot, you are being completely disingenuous here. 'People' do not want to rewrite the sections of the article concerning the early history of the celebration - except in a very minor way to improve its structure for readability. What 'people' want to do, me included, is to incorporate more material on recent and modern aspects of the celebration, with appropriate citations to reputable sources. You repeatedly block and revert such additions for specious and entirely personal reasons. Any user or administrator can look at my record of article creation and editing and see that I am scrupulous in the use of citations - I'm a professional scientist and rigorous citation of sources is in my bloodstream. Do I want to swamp this article with trivia? Obviously not. However, this article is not about brain surgery or the decoding of Linear B, it is about a folk celebration, and as such certain things that are central to it as a folk celebration are less than entirely po-faced and serious. This is in the nature of the subject of the article, it cannot be avoided. ] (]) 08:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Surely, if previous arguments were cogent but ignored, then they still constitute a perfectly legitimate basis for re-appraisal. Nothing on Misplaced Pages is written in stone - that's one of its virtues. ] (]) 14:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: Urselius, Karanacs just gave you a helpful list of suggestions and questions, none of which you addressed. I'm unwatching. ] (]) 15:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::The problem with the suggestion is that the terms 'Guy Fawkes Night' and 'Bonfire Night' are used entirely interchangeably. To foist on them a distinction 'Guy Fawkes Night' is a historical celebration and 'Bonfire Night' is a modern celebration would just be wrong. Misplaced Pages has to faithfully reflect reality not impose an artificial construct on reality. ] (]) 15:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

			== Requested move 15 February 2023 ==
	:Here is an account from Folklore and Myth Author(s): H. R. Ellis Davidson, Folklore,Vol. 87, No. 2 (1976), pp. 131-145Published Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

			<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	Guys and effigies are burnt, bonfires and fireworks cause a certain amount of damage
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''
	and injury every year, and special local customs recorded within fairly recent
	times include bell-ringing, shooting parties, the eating of special goodies
	like parkin, gingerbread and toffee, the burning of tar-barrels, the carrying
	round of effigies or of live men with blackened faces, as well as processions
	with masks, disguises and music. Throughout the nineteenth century, the
	evening of 5 November was a time of licensed hooliganism in many places.
	At Guildford, for instance, the 'guys' were not effigies but rioters, who
	rushed about in disguise, with torches and bludgeons, breaking down fences
	and gates for the bonfires: as George Oldcastle described them in 1904,
	"Their cry will never be forgotten by anyone whoever heard it. It was a thrilling,
	piercing note of peculiar intensity and was a warning for all peaceable citizens
	to be on their guard".

			The result of the move request was: '''no consensus.''' <small>(])</small> ''']''' (]) 19:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
	This is interesting and useful material and it includes reference to Parkin! Why should reputable and fully published material like this not be allowed to be used within the article? I really do not understand the blockade on such material. ] (]) 15:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

	:Has it ever occurred to you Urselius that the reason your edits are being reverted are because they are little more than trivia and are not worthy of being included in a featured article? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Has it ever occurred to you, Cassianto, that you are helping to enforce a ban on open editing of an article, that you are aiding and abetting the ownership of an article in direct contradiction to basic Misplaced Pages rules and ethics? ] (]) 08:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Considering that this article is about a folk celebration, and not the philosophy of Aristotle or particle physics, I would think that anyone would consider that relevant matter covered in an academic journal called "Folklore" would be appropriate. Incidentally, Antonia Fraser, who is quoted within the article as if she was a walking oracle, works at the intersection of academic and populist writing. As such anything from a specialist journal has more academic "clout" than her material. ] (]) 07:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	::<s>Gland<s>Glad you are back Cassianto. Did you notice that I posed you a question a higher up the page? I look forward to your answer. -- ] (]) 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::"Gland" to be back also PBS. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 18:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Thank you for pointing out my typing mistake and thank you for responding to my question (I have added a supplemental). -- ] (]) 21:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	@] do Cressy, Fraser or Sharpe provided a comprehensive survey of which countries celebrate Guy Fawkes Night in the 21st century and the history of Guy Fawkes night in those countries? Do they cover modern usage in Australia and New Zealand and why there is a difference between those two countries? Do they cover modern concern over environmental issues? Do they cover the number of accidents that occur each year due to fireworks? Do they cover political issues over the safe storage of fireworks or age restrictions on the purchase of fireworks? If not do you consider all such issues "trivial by nature"? -- ] (]) 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

	== Requested move 30 July 2015 ==

	<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

	The result of the move request was: '''Withdrawn by nominator.''' There is clearly no support for the rename to take place (Guy Fawkes Night -> Bonfire Night). The scope of the article, and whether ] should be merged here, is not clear. There is an RfC below to determine the scope of the article. Following this, if support seems likely, a merge request for ] to ] can be submitted. ] (]) 17:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

	----


	] → {{no redirect\|Bonfire Night}} – The most common name for this event appears to be "Bonfire Night". See Google Books , where "Bonfire Night" is twice as common as "Guy Fawkes Night". ] is already a very small article simply summarising this one. The few details on that page about bonfire traditions elsewhere (] and ]) can be merged with ]: these nights are infrequently referred to as "Bonfire Night" (often just by their proper names, occasionally as a lower case "bonfire night"). To see this, notice that Google results for "Bonfire Night" mention overwhelmingly the contents of this page, not Eleventh Night or St John's Eve. ] (]) 12:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support (as nominator)''' Per ]. There is also the problem that thousands of users end up at ], which contains just a fraction of the information of this page, when they actually wish to view this page. To get to this page, they must go from ] to ] to ], despite "Bonfire Night" being the most common name for the night. ] (]) 12:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	**A nomination is a !vote. The nominator shouldn't !vote as well. ] (]) 15:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::I have updated the post to make that clear. Thank you. ] (]) 16:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	{{Hidden begin \|showhide=left
	\| titlestyle = background:pink;
	\| title = Note (WP:NPA).
	}}
	::::How clever you are IP, managing to know how to log RfCs when you're such a new editor. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a sock of someone with a motive. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	{{Hidden end}}
	*'''Support''' Per ]. The fractured nature of coverage of this subject is entirely due to a few editors (see discussions above) arrogating complete control over this page and thereby excluding much relevant information purely because of their narrowly antiquarian tastes. As a result, other pages, such as ], appeared as a last resort for people wishing to bring more popular, folkloric and recent aspects of the ongoing annual celebration into Misplaced Pages coverage. ] (]) 13:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	::Interesting. Ultimately, a page on Bonfire Night/Guy Fawkes Night should present a thorough commentary on the event, both in historical terms and what occurs nowadays. If there is a problem with certain editors, it might be worth posting elsewhere (], ]?) for outside advice from other users. ] (]) 14:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::I have requested some input from other users. ] (]) 14:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Oppose''' remember, remember, the fifth of November and all that. This is a historical reference, and the historical nature of the origin of the term and event should probably be kept as the primary name. It is also a feature article. Maybe 'Bonfire Night', which seems to be mainly about the same subject, should be merged and redirected to here, the featured page, or that page renamed. ] 14:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	::"Bonfire Night" does seem more common nowadays. Whatever this article is called, it does make sense to merge the two articles and create a redirect: at the moment, editors are reaching ] instead of this page. There is also ] for other nights that involve bonfires. ] (]) 14:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::I didn't realize that this page had such a strong opinion base, just happened to notice it on the 'Requested move' page, thought of the movie "V", and what I knew the event as, and came by to comment. Possibly a neutral name such as "5th November, British Commonwealth" could cover all related topics. Guy Fawkes Night wasn't even the original name of the event, so it's possible that all points of view aren't being covered by choosing one title over any other. Just an idea to see if any consensus develops. ] 21:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Note''' There is currently also a dispute about what to include at ]. is supported by sources and describes how "Bonfire Night" is the British/Commonwealth tradition on 5 November, while other cultures also have celebrations involving bonfires under different names. has deleted the references and uses "Bonfire Night" as a general title for any celebration involving bonfires, including those with entirely different names (Eleventh Night etc.). ] (]) 14:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	::And there is a discussion at ]. And another one at ]. --] (]) 15:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::See from Google Trends: precisely once a year, there is a huge jump in interest for this "Bonfire Night". There is no such observation for any of the other events that involve bonfires. ] (]) 15:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. This article is about the history of Guy Fawkes Night, up to the present day. For at least 200 years of that 400+ year history, it was known primarily as Guy Fawkes Night. Only in the last few decades has it become known as bonfire night. Insofar as it pertains to 5 November, the Bonfire Night article is basically trivia that has no place here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 15:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	::It is interesting that ] (the most trusted authority on British etiquette) describes the event simply as "Bonfire Night". It is also interesting that the Google Books analysis given above shows that "Bonfire Night" has been more commonly used for all but 13 of the past 135 years. A simple Google search result gives the same conclusion (2,890,000 results vs 656,000 results). Does ] suggest we ignore what the common name has been for the last century and just use the name that was most used 200-400 years ago? Please provide some sources. You have already agreed that the celebration it is now known as "Bonfire Night". ] (]) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	::::"Please provide some sources" - they're right there, in the article. Read them if you'd like to know more. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::] the article only has its current emphasis on the history of bonfire night in England, because of your repeated edit warring to keep it so.-- ] (]) 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	::::And what have you bought to the table PBS? I suggest nothing. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I'd suggest even less that nothing. ] ] 10:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	*I couldn't '''oppose''' this strongly enough! Per Randy Kryn's comments above, this has historically been known as Guy Fawkes, and this is still the case in all of the Commonwealth. I'm tired of these useless move discussions based on inaccurate Google searches, which by the way are different for all users. ] (]) 16:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Merge Bonfire Night into this article''' (and other Bonfire Night articles) per ]. "Bonfire Night" is ambiguous, hence ]. Having it as a redirect to this article – with a ] hatnote – would give us the best of both worlds. ] (]) 18:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	**Support this idea, which was the position until ] started to edit the article. -- ] (]) 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	***...and had he of not, this article would have been languishing in the world of C class or worse. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 21:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' -- This same, boring thread comes up almost as often as bloody Guy Fawkes night! What a lot of wasted time and effort! '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	{{Hidden begin \|showhide=left
	\| titlestyle = background:pink;
	\| title = Note
	}}
	::Users might wish to note that there has been a long-running dispute about this article between ] and ]. In particular, Cassianto is accused of preventing others from editing the article and restricting its scope to just the history of the night, not how it is today, whilst Urselius is accused of adding unnecessary information. See the previous discussion. ] (]) 10:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	{{Hidden end}}
	*'''Oppose renaming.''' As an American, I must say that I have never heard of a "bonfire night." It is a term simply not used. The burning of a Guy Fawkes dummy, however, is very well known among the cognoscenti. So I can't see any reason for renaming this particular article. As for other bonfire traditions, well, I suppose they can be handled either by themselves or in a separate article. Sincerely, ] (]) 21:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Merge Bonfire Night to here''' and '''move Bonfire Night (disambiguation) to Bonfire Night'''. Because there are other events referred to as "Bonfire Night" it follows that there would be more references to that name; that doesn't prove it's a more common name for this subject. Also, since there are several "bonfire nights" clearly some disambiguation is required - so it makes sense to keep Guy Fawkes Night right where it is. ]] 10:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Request for comments''' Looking here, and above, there is clearly a long-running dispute about the scope of the article. It appears as if this is why we have two articles (] and ]). I have begun a "request for comments" below for the scope to be decided. Might it be worth suspending this requested move until the scope is decided? ] (]) 10:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' merge, the consequence of which would be that this article turns in the entropy soup so beloved of some editors (bonfire night in Outer Mongolia, bonfire night in Greenland, bonfire night in Lithuania ...) and would promptly be delisted as a featured article for lacking focus. ] ] 10:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	**'''Comment''' All of the hypothetical examples you give would not be in this article, they would properly appear in ] along with the real examples currently listed there. This article should not have been promoted to FA status nor should it be kept as such, because it failed and continues to fail some of the ]. PoD was breaching the 3RR rule during the months running up to and including the FA process (diffs can be presented if proof is required), this means that it failed the "e '''stable:'''" criteria. It failed and continues to fail "b '''comprehensive:''' it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" because it ignores contemporary celebrations around the globe. Due to this failure to be comprehensive it also fails "'''well-researched'''", "'''neutral'''", "'''Media'''" "'''Length''' (it does not stay focused on the main topic)", because it is not comprehensive in its coverage. So the sooner FA status is taken away, the sooner this can become more comprehensive article. -- ] (]) 14:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	**:You are of course entitled to your opinion, however misguided and misinformed it may be. ] ] 14:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	**::I <s>do not<s> think that your comment is not constructive, because it contains no explanation as to what you think is the correct information over which you think I am misinformed. I wait with interest to read what it is that you think is the correct information. -- ] (]) 14:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	**:::If you do believe this article should no longer be featured, you might wish to read through ]. The issue has already been raised at the talk page, so listing the article at "featured article review" might be best. ] (]) 14:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	**::::You may not have noticed that it was PBS that raised it on this page. ] (]) 16:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	**:::You might want to brush up on your understanding of double negatives PBS. ] ] 15:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	**::::Thank you for pointing out my error, however as I recognise it as an error I do not believe that I need to "brush up understanding of double negatives". I started out by writing "Your comment is not constructive" but decided that it was a matter of opinion as clearly as you spent time writing it you must have thought it constructive, so I tacked something on the front to make allowances for that and made a mistake. I still wait with interest to read what it is that you think is the correct information. -- ] (]) 16:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	**:::::The correct information is the information already in the article, not the rag-tag of half-understood facts you seem so keen to add. Next question? ] ] 16:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	**::::::Whether the information "already in the article" is correct is not currently the major issue for it FA status. I think a more pressing issue is that the criteria "b comprehensive" is not met and has not been met at any time since before it was designated a FA. Do you think that it does meet the criteria "b comprehensive" in its current form and that there is noting more to be added to this article? -- ] (]) 16:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose''' to renaming or merging any trivia about bonfires into this article. The article is about what the title says it is about, Guy Fawkes Night. A featured historical article is infinitely preferable to a trivia magnet diluted with everything and anything mentioning bonfires. ] (]) 17:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	----		----
	:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

			] → {{no redirect\|Bonfire Night in the United Kingdom}} – This article discusses the major UK celebration called "Bonfire Night" and per ] the article should move to its common name. A geographical identifier "in the United Kingdom" is required because a previous requested move to merge and overwrite the international page ] was refused. ] (]) 09:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
	== Request for comments ==

			I reviewed the article as part of the ] drive and moved the article per ]. The article is plainly discussing Bonfire Night in the UK and very few in the UK use Guy Fawkes Night to describe the celebration. ] (]) 18:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
	{{rfc\|hist\|soc\|rfcid=E8F54A8}}
			:Hi ], I've reverted this move. A ] demonstrated significant opposition, and while that was quite some time ago now, it's enough to suggest that a unilateral move is not the way to go. If you do feel that there is strong evidence supporting a change, I'd suggest elaborating on that in a formal move request. ] (]) 22:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
	This is an article about Guy Fawkes Night (also known as Bonfire Night). There have been numerous disputes before on the talk page about the scope of the article: should it focus just on the history of the event or should it also describe how the event is celebrated today?<br>
			::I'm going to notice this, for people in the UK its a lot like we didn't have an article on ] and instead there was an article called "Couples Love Day". After name change there will be other follow up edits necessary. ] (]) 09:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
	An aforementioned example is that there is currently no mention of traditional Bonfire Night food (such toffee apples and parkin). It might be helpful to compare the article with ], which does contain sections about both the history of the event and how it is celebrated today.<br>
			:::I do think it would be worth considering a formal move request once more, as there's no absolutely no doubt that "Bonfire night" is indeed the ] in the UK. Last time, the suggestion was "Bonfire night" which was rejected as too broad, partly on the basis that around the world there are many nights that could be so called. But in the UK, "bonfire night" means not just any bonfire night but ''the'' bonfire night of 5 November. Options could include "Bonfire night in the UK" or "Bonfire night (UK)" – but those might be too specific given that this article includes a section called "In other countries". My preference would be "Bonfire night (Guy Fawkes)", where "Bonfire night" is the common name, and "(Guy Fawkes)" distinquishes it from other bonfire nights that don't share the same history. ] (]) 17:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
	Note that information that might be relevant to this page is located elsewhere (], ] and ]). ] (]) 10:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
			::::I noticed the move and reversion. Looking at ] I see that is mainly about the UK night with minor mentions of other countries. In fact this article devotes more space to other countries. I would support an undisambiguated move. ], ], ] 17:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' Focus just on the history of the event.
			::::I think this is such a big UK celebration that it should have its own article and namespace, so I will request a move to ], if that is OK'd I'll move the international discussion over to ]. ] (]) 09:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''' Describe also how the event is celebrated today.
			*'''Support''' as per commonname. ] (]) 11:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' as I don't think the common name is clear cut. There are certainly regional differences. Google Trends has "Guy Fawkes Night" tracking as more popular than "Bonfire Night" in the UK. Britannica lists it as Guy Fawkes, as does English Heritage. Away from commonname, there is more to the night than bonfires, and some events don't have a bonfire - all bonfires will have Guy Fawkes, but not all Guy Fawkes celebrations will involve a bonfire. '''OwainDavies''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> edited at 11:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
			::Bonfire Night in my neck of the woods has no bonfire, just fireworks, but its still called Bonfire Night. ] (]) 11:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
			:::So, you're relying on local convention in your area to dictate commonname, when there's a whole country to take into account? '''OwainDavies''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> edited at 12:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
			::::And you're relying on google trends. ] (]) 12:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
			:::::Google trends is highly ephemeral. on the ] website says that "According to Google Trends, it’s most popularly known as ‘Bonfire Night’ rather than ‘Fireworks Night’ or ‘Guy Fawkes Night'." ] (]) 22:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
			::::::But it is at least some type of evidence. All anyone has presented for 'bonfire night' is that it is "overwhelmingly" the common name. Source: Trust me, bro. '''OwainDavies''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> edited at 07:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::See my post below, for the use of 'Bonfire Night' in a UK government publication. I imagine that the government would follow popular usage in a publication aimed at, amongst other things, public safety. ] (]) 09:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::I agree that Google trends . Contrary to the assertion above, it shows that "Bonfire Night" is a vastly more popular search term than "Guy Fawkes Night" in the UK. Perhaps you compared two different things, search term vs celebration? If so, apples v oranges, which doesn't tell us anything. ] (]) 09:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' as overwhelmingly the common name. I have lived in several areas of Britain. Bonfire night has been its common name in all of them. I'm not sure I've ever seen it called Guy Fawkes night. Britannica is American. -- ] (]) 13:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
			**Actually, ] would be best. -- ] (]) 14:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Current usage is overwhelmingly 'Bonfire Night', and not 'Guy Fawkes Night'. The ramifications of religiously motivated assassination plots in the early 17th century have become increasingly forgotten, and irrelevant, but the bonfire and the fireworks remain relevant. Plus the article badly needs more modern and recent content. ] (]) 14:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC) ''''Bonfire Night' is in official UK government usage.''' Department for Communities and Local Government (a branch of the UK government). From the publication: ''Celebrating with bonfires and fireworks: A community guide '' (2015) "Fireworks cannot be let off between 11pm and 7am except on: '''Bonfire Night''' (5 November), when the cut off is midnight; New Year’s Eve, Diwali and Chinese New Year, when the cut off is 1am." ] (]) 18:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
			* '''Support''', as I indicated above. The more general ] article can then include more of the things that are not UK related. Out of interest, the OED lists two meanings for "Bonfire night": a general one {{green\|"A night on which bonfires are lit in celebration or commemoration"}} and a specific one, labelled as chiefly British, {{green\|"The night of 5 November, on which bonfires are lit to commemorate the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, such celebrations typically also featuring a firework display and, traditionally, the burning of an effigy of Guy Fawkes (or formerly, of the Pope)"}}. These two meanings map well to the proposed general and specific articles. ] (]) 16:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
			::That goes against ] - specifically Precision: "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." Having two articles, bonfire night and bonfire night (uk) - or some variation - creates unnecessary ambiguity, where guy fawkes night is more precise. '''OwainDavies''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> edited at 07:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. When you include both terms "Guy Fawkes Night" and "Guy Fawkes Day", combined they are more commonly used than "Bonfire Night". So I think retaining "Guy Fawkes" in the title is best. ] (]) 17:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
			*:Highly unlikely. Do you have evidence for that assertion, I wonder? ] (]) 17:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

			* '''Oppose''' per ] - "'''Concision''' – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.". ] generally only applies when the five criteria are met. ] (]) 03:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
	===Survey===
			::It would appear that you go against UK government usage, I imagine that trumps Misplaced Pages guidelines, which I think you have misapplied here anyway. ] (]) 09:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''' Many readers looking at this article would wish to read both about the history of the event and how it is celebrated today. This is consistent with other pages (for example, ], ] and ]). Unless this article is renamed "History of Guy Fawkes Night", its scope should not be so restricted. ] (])
			:::@], what the UK government call it has no bearing here, they do not dictate common usage. They have various other motives for their choice of term. -- ] (]). 09:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
	* I would expect this article to describe how the event is currently celebrated, in addition to its history. This article does the history really well, so it is a shame that doesn't give much space to modern celebrations. We have an article on ] to separate out what some regard as matters of modern trivia, so perhaps we need one on the ] to separate out what some regard as matters of antiquarian interest? (Incidentally, the talk archives of this article are in a mess - ClueBot has been adding seemingly randomly to various different archives from ] to ] over the last year or two without much regard to maintaining chronological order, so it is quite hard to look back to see who said what and when) <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::::Your logic here is mistaken. In order to be understood in the easiest manner and by the widest possible readership the government, in a safety document, must follow common usage. Otherwise they would run the risk of not being understood. ] (]) 17:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
			::{{tq\|] generally only applies when the five criteria are met.}} And where did you get ''that'' from? Because it completely goes against pretty much every RM I've ever taken part in (and that's thousands). -- ] (]) 10:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
			:::@], I apologize, I did misquote it it does say that "Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above.". Nonetheless, the current name is more in line with ] regardless. ] (]) 01:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
			::::It is usual practice that ] trumps everything unless it cannot be made unambiguous or there are ] considerations. And I think there is little doubt that Bonfire Night is ''overwhelmingly'' the common name. The fact it needs a disambiguator is irrelevant. -- ] (]) 08:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose''' 1. Guy Fawkes Night, and Guy Fawkes Day is observed in many countries, not just the UK. 2. Guy Fawkes is a very specific bonfire for a very specific purpose. We have other bonfire nights for a purpose, often referred to uniquely, none are referred to as bonfire night, we have Eleventh Night celebrations of 11 July Battle of the Boyne, 23 June, Saint John's Eve night, BeatLl, Haalloween, Fninish ehannus. In summer, e herein the UK bawe have rbeque and no effigy, July, and on November 5th, and only November 5th we have Guy Fawkes on the Guy Fawkes bonfire site with an effigy. We already have ], Bonfire night in the UK, most of the title is redundant and only serves to confuse. But better just Guy Fawkes or we are cancelling history and maybe Wiki shouldn't be doing that. ]]<small><sup><i>(])</i></sup></small> 13:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
			**Nobody is "cancelling history". Bonfore night is what we call it in the UK. We don't call it Guy Fawkes night. In any case, that would suggest we were ''celebrating'' Fawkes instead of condemning him. -- ] (]) 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose''' per {{u\|Ex nihil}}. This isn't just another name for 'bonfire night', it is a cultural event in parts of the UK, which often involves a celebration around a bonfire, as with ] in Denmark. -- ] (]). 13:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
			**Indeed it is. And we in the UK call it bonfire night! -- ] (]) 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
			::It is another name for 'Bonfire Night' and one in less common use, that is the whole point of this. ] (]) 22:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
			:::Not at all. Referring to Guy Fawkes Night as "Bonfire Night" is like rebranding Christmas as "Winterfest". -- ] (]). 22:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
			::::Struggling to understand the rationale for your !vote here, as you seem to be suggesting that the proposed title is some sort of 'rebranding' that you find objectional . Do you have evidence to bring that "Bonfire Night" is ''not'' the ] in the UK? ] (]) 23:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
			:::::I'm saying that I think the proposed name is too vague as it assumes too much that is untrue. Although some people in some locations may use "Bonfire Night" to refer to their Guy Fawkes Night celebrations, that does not mean that the terms are synonymous worldwide. "Guy Fawkes Night" is ] and unambiguous, the proposed name is not as it requires disambiguation. -- ] (]). 14:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
			::::My previous assertion is entirely true, because 'Bonfire Night' and 'Guy Fawkes Night' are entirely interchangeable in British usage. With the proviso that 'Bonfire Night' is more commonly used. ] (]) 12:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
			:::::Misplaced Pages doesn't just cover British Usage though. -- ] (]). 14:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
			::::::But it is a British tradition. Non-British usage is irrelevant to the discussion. ] (]) 14:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
			::::{{tq\|Referring to Guy Fawkes Night as "Bonfire Night" is like rebranding Christmas as "Winterfest".}} This is complete rubbish. It's ''always'' been commonly referred to as Bonfire Night, certainly throughout my half-century of life in the UK. It's not some neologism invented relatively recently to avoid offending anyone as with Winterfest. -- ] (]) 10:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
			:::::The age of the term doesn't excuse it, and it is too vague, which the current name is not. -- ] (]). 14:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
			::::::This is purely your ''opinion''. You also don't seem to realise that "Guy Fawkes Night" would be generally something celebrating Mr Fawkes, whereas this is entirely the opposite. -- ] (]) 14:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
			::::::If we're wanting old terms we could always revert to its orginal name of "Gunpower Treason Day" :) ] (]) 16:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' because “bonfire night” isn’t very ] and I am loathe to move it to yet another confusing “x (in sense y)” title because some people ] ] ] (]) 13:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
			**A rather bizarre comment from an American, given this is an article on a ''British'' topic that ''British'' people say should be moved because yes, that's indeed what we call it, and the current title is ''not'' what we commonly call it! -- ] (]) 14:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
			**:You’re missing the point— this isn’t about linguistic nationalism but rather the fact that you will not stop saying the same thing over and over! ] (]) 13:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
			<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
			</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

			== Technically its the 5th November observance ==
	*Not this shit again. No. Just read the archives and educate yourself. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 15:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	*:Some aren't here to be educated, just to cause maximum trouble. ] ] 16:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::Is there a place in the archives I have missed that shows consensus for this article not making proper mention of the present-day celebration? ] (]) 17:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

			The day or more importantly the is informally known as bonfire night, guy fawkes day and fireworks night. And even though the act isn’t in law the celebration of foiling the plot and preserving our system of governence is still observed ( Observance of 5th November Act 1605). Its funny how its only americans whom seem to think its guy fawkes night (do you really think we celebrate him?), i’d like to a quote from a prominent uk institution say I don’t know parliment in the actual name if the night! ] (]) 05:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	*It seems clear to me that there is no consensus to merge trivia into this article. Improve the Bonfire article if you think it is so important. ] (]) 17:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

			:Did you see that the name was discussed in the section above? ] (]) 10:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2'''. An article about an annual event should be an article about the event, not English history. Personally, I find infinitely more informative that the current 47k. ] (]) 08:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:02, 6 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guy Fawkes Night 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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Guy Fawkes Night is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Guy Fawkes Night is part of the Gunpowder Plot series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 5, 2017.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 26, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
January 28, 2011	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
June 9, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 5, 2004, November 5, 2005, November 5, 2006, November 5, 2007, November 5, 2008, November 5, 2009, November 5, 2010, November 5, 2011, November 5, 2012, November 5, 2013, November 5, 2014, November 5, 2015, November 5, 2016, November 5, 2018, November 5, 2019, November 5, 2020, November 5, 2021, November 5, 2022, November 5, 2023, and November 5, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

England Top‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Holidays Top‑importance

	Holidays portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Other talk page banners

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

RM, Guy Fawkes Night → Bonfire Night, Withhdrawn, 30 July 2015, discussion
RM, Guy Fawkes Night → Bonfire Night in the United Kingdom, No consensus, 15 February 2023, discussion

The use of the word conspiracy.

I notice the word conspiracy in the start of the article. This words strikes me with a different resonance since the pandemic. I notice the article was last edited 3 days ago? But why? It is long history, how can that change?

I wonder when, in which edit, the word conspiracy appeared in the description. 2A00:23C4:3997:AD00:FC74:3127:9A2B:992B (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

'Conspiracy' has a defined meaning and is definitely applicable to a plot involving multiple people to assassinate a king. A provable conspiracy is not the same as a conspiracy theory. Urselius (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Julian to Gregorian date conversion

Since the gunpowder plot was listed on an old-style Julian calendar date, shouldn't a new-style Gregorian date be listed (in brackets) as well? 2401:7400:4004:35E7:52F3:F3A6:ECB2:96C0 (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Could be mentioned, for the benefit of Western European readers as the Continent (outside Eastern Orthodox Christendom) used the Gregorian calendar. However the date was not moved when Britain joined the Gregorian calendar in 1752, as it continued to be held on 5th November on the new calendar system.Cloptonson (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night → Bonfire Night in the United Kingdom – This article discusses the major UK celebration called "Bonfire Night" and per WP:COMMONNAME the article should move to its common name. A geographical identifier "in the United Kingdom" is required because a previous requested move to merge and overwrite the international page Bonfire Night was refused. Desertarun (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed the article as part of the Misplaced Pages:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2010–2015 drive and moved the article per WP:COMMONNAME. The article is plainly discussing Bonfire Night in the UK and very few in the UK use Guy Fawkes Night to describe the celebration. Desertarun (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Desertarun, I've reverted this move. A previous move request for a similar title demonstrated significant opposition, and while that was quite some time ago now, it's enough to suggest that a unilateral move is not the way to go. If you do feel that there is strong evidence supporting a change, I'd suggest elaborating on that in a formal move request. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to notice this, for people in the UK its a lot like we didn't have an article on Valentine's Day and instead there was an article called "Couples Love Day". After name change there will be other follow up edits necessary. Desertarun (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I do think it would be worth considering a formal move request once more, as there's no absolutely no doubt that "Bonfire night" is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME in the UK. Last time, the suggestion was "Bonfire night" which was rejected as too broad, partly on the basis that around the world there are many nights that could be so called. But in the UK, "bonfire night" means not just any bonfire night but the bonfire night of 5 November. Options could include "Bonfire night in the UK" or "Bonfire night (UK)" – but those might be too specific given that this article includes a section called "In other countries". My preference would be "Bonfire night (Guy Fawkes)", where "Bonfire night" is the common name, and "(Guy Fawkes)" distinquishes it from other bonfire nights that don't share the same history. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the move and reversion. Looking at Bonfire Night I see that is mainly about the UK night with minor mentions of other countries. In fact this article devotes more space to other countries. I would support an undisambiguated move. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this is such a big UK celebration that it should have its own article and namespace, so I will request a move to Bonfire Night in the United Kingdom, if that is OK'd I'll move the international discussion over to Bonfire Night. Desertarun (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Support as per commonname. Desertarun (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose as I don't think the common name is clear cut. There are certainly regional differences. Google Trends has "Guy Fawkes Night" tracking as more popular than "Bonfire Night" in the UK. Britannica lists it as Guy Fawkes, as does English Heritage. Away from commonname, there is more to the night than bonfires, and some events don't have a bonfire - all bonfires will have Guy Fawkes, but not all Guy Fawkes celebrations will involve a bonfire. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 11:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Bonfire Night in my neck of the woods has no bonfire, just fireworks, but its still called Bonfire Night. Desertarun (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

So, you're relying on local convention in your area to dictate commonname, when there's a whole country to take into account? OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 12:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

And you're relying on google trends. Desertarun (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Google trends is highly ephemeral. This current page on the English Heritage website says that "According to Google Trends, it’s most popularly known as ‘Bonfire Night’ rather than ‘Fireworks Night’ or ‘Guy Fawkes Night'." MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

But it is at least some type of evidence. All anyone has presented for 'bonfire night' is that it is "overwhelmingly" the common name. Source: Trust me, bro. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 07:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

See my post below, for the use of 'Bonfire Night' in a UK government publication. I imagine that the government would follow popular usage in a publication aimed at, amongst other things, public safety. Urselius (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Google trends does provide some evidence. Contrary to the assertion above, it shows that "Bonfire Night" is a vastly more popular search term than "Guy Fawkes Night" in the UK. Perhaps you compared two different things, search term vs celebration? If so, apples v oranges, which doesn't tell us anything. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Support as overwhelmingly the common name. I have lived in several areas of Britain. Bonfire night has been its common name in all of them. I'm not sure I've ever seen it called Guy Fawkes night. English Heritage does not call it Guy Fawkes Night. Britannica is American. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, Bonfire Night (United Kingdom) would be best. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Support Current usage is overwhelmingly 'Bonfire Night', and not 'Guy Fawkes Night'. The ramifications of religiously motivated assassination plots in the early 17th century have become increasingly forgotten, and irrelevant, but the bonfire and the fireworks remain relevant. Plus the article badly needs more modern and recent content. Urselius (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC) 'Bonfire Night' is in official UK government usage. Department for Communities and Local Government (a branch of the UK government). From the publication: Celebrating with bonfires and fireworks: A community guide (2015) "Fireworks cannot be let off between 11pm and 7am except on: Bonfire Night (5 November), when the cut off is midnight; New Year’s Eve, Diwali and Chinese New Year, when the cut off is 1am." Urselius (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Support, as I indicated above. The more general Bonfire Night article can then include more of the things that are not UK related. Out of interest, the OED lists two meanings for "Bonfire night": a general one "A night on which bonfires are lit in celebration or commemoration" and a specific one, labelled as chiefly British, "The night of 5 November, on which bonfires are lit to commemorate the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, such celebrations typically also featuring a firework display and, traditionally, the burning of an effigy of Guy Fawkes (or formerly, of the Pope)". These two meanings map well to the proposed general and specific articles. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That goes against WP:CRITERIA - specifically Precision: "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." Having two articles, bonfire night and bonfire night (uk) - or some variation - creates unnecessary ambiguity, where guy fawkes night is more precise. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 07:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. When you include both terms "Guy Fawkes Night" and "Guy Fawkes Day", combined they are more commonly used than "Bonfire Night". So I think retaining "Guy Fawkes" in the title is best. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Highly unlikely. Do you have evidence for that assertion, I wonder? MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CRITERIA - "Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.". WP:COMMONNAME generally only applies when the five criteria are met. Estar8806 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It would appear that you go against UK government usage, I imagine that trumps Misplaced Pages guidelines, which I think you have misapplied here anyway. Urselius (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Urselius, what the UK government call it has no bearing here, they do not dictate common usage. They have various other motives for their choice of term. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Your logic here is mistaken. In order to be understood in the easiest manner and by the widest possible readership the government, in a safety document, must follow common usage. Otherwise they would run the risk of not being understood. Urselius (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME generally only applies when the five criteria are met. And where did you get that from? Because it completely goes against pretty much every RM I've ever taken part in (and that's thousands). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Necrothesp, I apologize, I did misquote it it does say that "Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above.". Nonetheless, the current name is more in line with WP:CONCISE regardless. Estar8806 (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It is usual practice that WP:COMMONNAME trumps everything unless it cannot be made unambiguous or there are WP:COMMONALITY considerations. And I think there is little doubt that Bonfire Night is overwhelmingly the common name. The fact it needs a disambiguator is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose 1. Guy Fawkes Night, and Guy Fawkes Day is observed in many countries, not just the UK. 2. Guy Fawkes is a very specific bonfire for a very specific purpose. We have other bonfire nights for a purpose, often referred to uniquely, none are referred to as bonfire night, we have Eleventh Night celebrations of 11 July Battle of the Boyne, 23 June, Saint John's Eve night, BeatLl, Haalloween, Fninish ehannus. In summer, e herein the UK bawe have rbeque and no effigy, July, and on November 5th, and only November 5th we have Guy Fawkes on the Guy Fawkes bonfire site with an effigy. We already have Bonfire Night, Bonfire night in the UK, most of the title is redundant and only serves to confuse. But better just Guy Fawkes or we are cancelling history and maybe Wiki shouldn't be doing that. Ex nihil 13:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody is "cancelling history". Bonfore night is what we call it in the UK. We don't call it Guy Fawkes night. In any case, that would suggest we were celebrating Fawkes instead of condemning him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Ex nihil. This isn't just another name for 'bonfire night', it is a cultural event in parts of the UK, which often involves a celebration around a bonfire, as with Sankthansaften in Denmark. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed it is. And we in the UK call it bonfire night! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It is another name for 'Bonfire Night' and one in less common use, that is the whole point of this. Urselius (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. Referring to Guy Fawkes Night as "Bonfire Night" is like rebranding Christmas as "Winterfest". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Struggling to understand the rationale for your !vote here, as you seem to be suggesting that the proposed title is some sort of 'rebranding' that you find objectional . Do you have evidence to bring that "Bonfire Night" is not the WP:COMMONNAME in the UK? MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that I think the proposed name is too vague as it assumes too much that is untrue. Although some people in some locations may use "Bonfire Night" to refer to their Guy Fawkes Night celebrations, that does not mean that the terms are synonymous worldwide. "Guy Fawkes Night" is WP:PRECISE and unambiguous, the proposed name is not as it requires disambiguation. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

My previous assertion is entirely true, because 'Bonfire Night' and 'Guy Fawkes Night' are entirely interchangeable in British usage. With the proviso that 'Bonfire Night' is more commonly used. Urselius (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't just cover British Usage though. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

But it is a British tradition. Non-British usage is irrelevant to the discussion. Urselius (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Referring to Guy Fawkes Night as "Bonfire Night" is like rebranding Christmas as "Winterfest". This is complete rubbish. It's always been commonly referred to as Bonfire Night, certainly throughout my half-century of life in the UK. It's not some neologism invented relatively recently to avoid offending anyone as with Winterfest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The age of the term doesn't excuse it, and it is too vague, which the current name is not. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This is purely your opinion. You also don't seem to realise that "Guy Fawkes Night" would be generally something celebrating Mr Fawkes, whereas this is entirely the opposite. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If we're wanting old terms we could always revert to its orginal name of "Gunpower Treason Day" :) MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose because “bonfire night” isn’t very specific and I am loathe to move it to yet another confusing “x (in sense y)” title because some people keep shouting “But that’s what WE call it here!” Dronebogus (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- A rather bizarre comment from an American, given this is an article on a British topic that British people say should be moved because yes, that's indeed what we call it, and the current title is not what we commonly call it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  You’re missing the point— this isn’t about linguistic nationalism but rather the fact that you will not stop saying the same thing over and over! Dronebogus (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Technically its the 5th November observance

The day or more importantly the is informally known as bonfire night, guy fawkes day and fireworks night. And even though the act isn’t in law the celebration of foiling the plot and preserving our system of governence is still observed ( Observance of 5th November Act 1605). Its funny how its only americans whom seem to think its guy fawkes night (do you really think we celebrate him?), i’d like to a quote from a prominent uk institution say I don’t know parliment in the actual name if the night! 82.28.45.231 (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you see that the name was discussed in the section above? MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: