Talk:Charles I's journey from Oxford to the Scottish army camp near Newark

Military history: British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms

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

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

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

Copy edit

{{copy edit}} The spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors are all in the lead - I didn't follow through to see how pervasive the issues were. For example, "the military Royalism was all but defeated and it was only a matter of days before Oxford would be fully investeded would fall (see Third Siege of Oxford), to the New Model Army" shows all three issues. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) user:SarekOfVulcan are you familiar with WP:BRD? You make an bold edit it is reverted, you then discuss the bold edit on the talk page you do not revert the revert. (2) Do you disagree with that process and prefer to edit-war?

A few maintenance template such as {{unreferenced}} serve a dual purpose, but they primarily they are there to give the reader additional information about the article's information. In the case of {{unreferenced}} that the information in the article may not be accurate.

{{copy edit}} is purely a maintenance issue, it is of no direct benefit to a reader who if the come here are not interested in editorial issues, as such it is better addressed on the talk page of that article. (3) Otherwise why do you think that articles have talk pages? -- PBS (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@user:SarekOfVulcan. That last edit result in an edit clash. If you can see errors why not fix them rather than practice drive by tagging? -- PBS (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Their purposes are to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That did not answer my three questions directly. Besides I moved the template to the talk page so editors are alerted, and after all that is what talk pages are for. -- PBS (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the following template here as it is a maintenance issue and maintenance issues should be discussed on the talk page not in article space. {{copy edit}} See the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid "A self-reference in an article usually mentions Wikipedia directly or tells readers to take an action on Wikipedia, such as editing the article". "Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup which is not a guideline. -- PBS (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

???? Maintenance templates belong on articles. From the guideline: Typically, self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project should be avoided. Others, such as maintenance templates, may be necessary. If they use {{Ambox}}, they are intended specifically for article space, and categorization of the need for maintenance is applied only in article space.

I agree with you that maintenance issues should be discussed on the talk page not in article space, but the template is not discussion, it is a maintenance template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something in placed in an "Template:Ambox" does not mean that it belongs in article space. -- PBS (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the documentation for {{Ambox}} disagrees with you many times. If you have a disagreement with that documentation, perhaps the talk page for that template would be a good place to begin. The talk page of an obscure article is not an effective place to have this wider discussion.

From a practical perspective, placing an Ambox-based maintenance template on a talk page is much less likely to get you the results that you want, since it does not categorize the page. The maintenance categories are the primary way of bringing maintenance needs to the attention of people who care about those needs. In the case of {{copy edit}}, the Guild of Copy Editors is very active and works diligently on the backlog of categorized articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit complete

I have completed a copy edit on this article. The prose is not perfect by any means, and it is a bit flowery for my tastes, but I left most of the prose style in place while fixing the mechanical issues that I was able to correct. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]