Talk:House of Lancaster/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Should we link to the cities of Lancaster and York? They seem to me to be red herrings; anybody that follows their links will be going the wrong way. We should instead link to the counties. Of course, we do link to the counties, so the thing to do is simply to delink the cities.

BTW, we don't actually link to the city of Lancaster. Lancaster is a disambiguation page — one of whose pointers is to this very article!

— Toby 10:42 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

"....and their great grandson founded the House of Stuart, James I of England."

This statement is obviously wrong. The "House of Stuart" was ruling in Scotland for about 200 years before James I of England. And Henry VII daughter Margaret is not "found" the House of Stuart, she married into it. Eregli bob 12:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Royal House template

As the House of Lancaster is a cadet branch of the House of Plantagenet, is it correct to describe it separately to the House of Plantagenet, in the "Royal Houses" succession template?

The Lancastrians are listed as part of the House of Plantagenet in the List of monarchs of England page, not separately to it, and included in the list of Plantagenet Kings in the House of Plantagenet page.

Equivalent, related comments also raised for the House of Plantagenet, House of York, and House of Tudor "Royal Houses" succession templates.

--Drojem (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)--Drojem (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:House of Plantagenet vs. Category:House of Lancaster

Category:House of Lancaster is itself a category within Category:House of Plantagenet. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI unnumberd of France.

Henry VI is unnumberd in the regnal templates therefore it should be mentioned as such,not Henry VI as this is not the entry.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad Links

I am sorry, I am new to wikipedia, and I tried to make comments , I didn't realize there is a separate talk page The links are bad, ( named lion points to cow, named boar points to octopus, among others) I think there is a lot of inaccurate information in this article, I will try to google alternative sourced and do a check when I have free time. Sorry again, I thought comments were part of the main article but not visible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.22.91.208 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the article to a previous, non-vandalized, version. It should be okay now.  Yintan  21:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Article (or not?)

This article is a bit or a back water when it comes to visitor numbers but I have given it a bit of a tidy. In the absence of other editors I think it is close to a Good Article but as that is only one person's opinion the best way to check is just to give it a go (or maybe not?) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. The worst that can happen is that it fails and we get suggestions about how to make it better. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:House of Lancaster/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark Miller (talk · contribs) 22:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria

An article can be failed without further review if, prior to the review, it has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). If the article is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria then it can be failed without being placed on hold. If copyright infringements are found in a nominated article then it can be failed without further review. In all other cases a full review against the six criteria is to be conducted and the nominator given a chance to address any issues.

1. Stable. No edit wars. Y
2. No cleanup banners or tags. Y

Review

A good article is— House of Lancaster

Y Well-written:

1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
1. YSpelling seems to use consistent British English variant and grammar seems appropriate.
2. YI see an issue with clarity in a couple of things. In the lead and the first section the origin of the dynasty or House of Lancaster is written in simplified terms that I think need further clarity (and sourcing). Specifically:" From the grant of lands and privileges by Henry III of England to his second son Edmund Crouchback in the 13th Century the Earls and Dukes of Lancaster were the wealthiest landowners in England next to the King." and "The House came into existence with grants of possessions from Henry III of England to his second son Edmund Crouchback." I think there should be more specifics about what was granted and how even in the lede to understand the history a little better and perhaps add some focus on the origin.

Amended - what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I liked it very much. I made a small change from "warlord" to monarch and "leapt at" to "quick to".--Mark Miller (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

2. Yit complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Y Verifiable with no original research:

1. Yit contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
Reference section consistant and formatted appropriately.
2. Yreliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and
• YThe section:"Conflict between Edward II and Lancaster" is a rather large chunk of un-cited material. If reference number three is the source for the entire section, I would ask if all that information is on one page and if so, that there be more citations for direct claims and perhaps one or two more references here would be nice, but not a deal breaker. I myself do not have this source available, but that doesn't mean I can't add a couple more different references to cite the existing claims, but it does need to be done for GA criteria.

Citations added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• YThe opening to the section:"Henry V and the Hundred Years' War – the Lancastrian war" is vague. It starts of with an opinion which requires a direct citation:"Henry V of England was a successful and ruthless martial leader". I am not questioning it, but it should have the citation even if repeating another reference. However, I also think there should be an expanded opening for clarity, explaining the specific part or phase the "Lancastrian war" played in the overall Hundred years' war.

Citation added + some context Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

3. it contains no original research.
• Y There is a concern of OR only in that there is a large chunk of un-cited text. If that is cleared up as mentioned above that would clear up any concerns of OR.

Hopefully all now clared up......what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think your changes with the copy edit I made for neutral wording, is good.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

YBroad in its coverage:

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
• YThere are a few places where the main aspects seem to be missing. See Above under "Well Written".
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• YThere are a few places where focus could be improved and are important enough to need addressing for GA. Se "Well Written".
• YIn the first section: "Origin of the Earls of Lancaster" I have removed sectioning that I felt was to much detail by emphasizing Edward II and the Ordinances of 1311 in header title that sectioned off content, and by the main article link before the text. The links are still present in the prose.
1. YNeutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
2. YStable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• YStable with no edit wars.

YIllustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
• YThere are some common issues with the copyright tags on a few images that need fixing with the proper PD Art license that eliminates the red error message. I will list the images here but this should be a simple enough matter for me to adjust.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
1. YFile:HenryVIofEngland.JPG
2. YFile:BodleianDouce231Fol1rEdCrouchbackAndStGeorge.jpg
• Y Image replaced The image File:Agincour.JPG is missing author, source and date information and was replaced with an image with clear sourcing and authorship.
• Y Image replaced The file File:Kings2004 1002(011).jpg has copyright issues with attribution at upload being unclear and was replaced with an image with clear authorship and licensing.
• YThe image File:Thomas of Lancaster posessions.png is missing author, date and a description._{This actually has every it needs just not boiler plated}.
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Y Image removed File File:Hundred years war.gif. missing all Too much information is missing or incorrect. I attempted to rescue the image by getting all the right fixes for basic use of an animated map to show context by translating a key. But it lacks source information which makes it original research and there is a mistake in the dating for the Battle of Formigny. It took place on April 15, 1450 and the animation shows it on the map dated 1451-53. This must be addressed or deleted (from the article). Missing is source, author, date and a description. This could place it in danger of deletion on commons but, due to the missing info lacks enough encyclopedic context/value with inaccurate dating and un-sourced territorial movements illustrated as facts. I don't believe this passes criteria to be used in a GA article.

This article has been listed as a Good Article.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

ACR or FA?

@Hchc2009: Hi HC, on the Milhist ACR review you said there's a little bit more work to do before FA, but I feel that it's meet ACR standards. It would be really helpful if you could add some detail/advice/help for filling the gap - I don't have the knowledge/experience but would like to give it a go. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course - will try to pull some thoughts together tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hchc2009: I think you may have forgotton this one or should I just nominate and see what the process throughs up? Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

My apologies - you're absolutely right (!), I'd been travelling and had forgotten. I'd recommend looking through some of the following, which will pull out some of the themes around kingship and power in these rulers:

• "The Reign of King Henry VI: The Exercise of Royal Authority, 1422-1461", by Ralph Griffiths. The chapter on propaganda would be useful.
• Lucy Brown's chapter in "Conflicts, Consequences and the Crown in the Late Middle Ages", edited by Linda Clark
• A. Goodman, "John of Gaunt: The Exercise of Princely Power in Fourteenth-Century Europe", a classic text on John that I'd expect to see referenced in an article like this
• English Heritage's most recent guide to "Dunstanburgh Castle" by Oswald and Ashbee would give you some potential insights into how two of the Lancastrians managed symbolism and power.
• "Richard II, Edward II, and the Lancastrian Inheritance", by C. Given-Wilson, in the English Historical Review, Vol. 109, No. 432 (Jun., 1994), pp. 553-571, would also continue this same theme.

At FA, I'd also be expecting an historiography section - how have the views of historians on the Lancastrians changed over the years? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Why the lack of parallelism between the House of York article? Specifically, the inclusion of the coat of arms of one particular Earl, rather than the heraldic rose? The articles used to both use the rose of their respective families until some idiot decided to make this change and disrupt the most obvious symbolic representations of these families and their dynastic struggle.74.215.242.83 (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this period of history, so there may be a perfectly good case for changing the infobox image, but I note that it's been accepted at formal reviews earlier this year. Pls follow WP process, which is that such a change is discussed and a consensus reached before altering the article (if at all). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Easy to explain the difference between this and the York article - this one has been updated and put through review but the York article is a start class article from the dark ages of Wikipedia. Second point is that the rose removed is not an heraldic rose that was used by the Lancastrians; if anything the York article should change the hearaldry to something that was used by the dynasty. Where there is evidence that roses where used as minor symbols the use of roses for the dynasties are largely considered a Victorian affectation. Furthermore the current heraldry is not for one Earl only but all the Lancastrian Earls before they gained the throne when they then quartered the lillies and the lions.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Did another very quick dig - seems like the House of York largely used the quartered lillies of France and lions of England—to mark their descent from Edward III— differenced in a variety of minor ways to mark their more junior status.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors

There ara some problems in the references' tags, could somebody fix it? Thank you, Aris de Methymna (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Part of the content, including named references, was transcluded from List of coats of arms of the House of Plantagenet - but only part of that page's content, without the code that actually defined those references. Another part of the coat of arms content was half-translated from the French Wikipedia, I believe, again leaving this article with references where the code that defined them wasn't copied along. I don't think we need to show every single Lancaster's personal coat of arms in this article; thus I have removed that content and just left a {{main}} link in the "Coat of arms" section, fixing the reference errors in the process. Huon (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)