Talk:Battle of Rowton Heath

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 01:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look over the next few days and then start to make some comments. SilkTork *^YES! 01:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Pause

I'm going to have limited internet access over the weekend as I'm going to France visiting relatives. I'll be back on March 3rd, and I'll finish dealing with this review then. SilkTork *^YES! 18:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry for delay. I'll be finishing this off shortly. SilkTork *^YES! 17:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  If you're busy, I'm sure someone else can take over in short order, that's no big deal. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Pass

A useful article which summarises the main events of the day and puts them in context. It follows the sources I was able to check, and appears to be uncontroversial and neutral. I did some minor tidying up - the article was essentially sound and no need for any further work to meet GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 17:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Rowton Heath is wrong, it's called Rowton Moor

Here is the official local plaque...

Battlefield plaque

.

So why is this article named incorrectly as Rowton Heath? No one round here calls it Rowton Heath, it's always been Rowton Moor, as can be seen by it own name on the official plaque. The name of this article is wrong. My grandparents grew up near here and they always called it Rowton Moor, too, never heath.

More interestingly on Wikimedia Commons, there are 20 images listed by, I assume local people, who have taken pictures of "Rowton Moor" whereas there is but one by a visitor who uses the term "Rowton Heath". Is that how history is corrupted, take a name but it's only official if an "official" makes one up for it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.75.96 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess both are "correct". All the sources used for the article that are searchable online use "Heath". Simon Ward in Chester: A History uses "Moor". I see no point in changing it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow what a typically smug and predicable Wikipedian answer to the case when a heavily-worked on article is wrong but pride goes before an IP being taken as correct. Even the official plaque says its Moor (not Heath). Better still I actually bothered to do a Google search: Moor = 940,000 "hits" whereas Heath = 78,000 "hits", so even from such a crude examination of the evidence it is quite clear what this article's title should actually be. ("All the sources used for the article that are searchable online use "Heath"". So what? They're patently wrong, it also shows how lazy WP is for cut and paste) Besides what on earth does "both correct mean"? Because usually if it's wrong a WP editor will defeat any point on very simple grounds, like no references or Original Research. In this case an IP is clearly correct but the error is simply brushed aside and dismissed by an established editor who thinks they are "right"! So typical of this school-borne homework essay site, as the quote notes: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." 86.129.68.91 (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a better search is on Google Books for "Battle of Rowton Moor" (1,870) vs "Battle of Rowton Heath" (3,410). Using that metric, "heath" wins. —howcheng {chat} 20:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted this two years ago and now there is interest? Well on Wikipedia there is something called WP:COMMONNAME, the common name for the battle is Rowton Moor not Rowton Heath (the sarcastic IP above has already noted that the common name on Google is Rowton Moor). Even the official interpretative plaque states it is called Rowton Moor not Rowton Heath. Besides just because it is called Rowton Heath in more books is irrelevant, all that shows is how often writers/researchers copy each other and repeat the error. The proper name is Rowton Moor, so this article is named incorrectly.109.149.211.52 (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Addendum I don't know why an admin with no knowledge of this topic or place would want to add their two pennies worth? The sarccy writer 86.129.68.91 alluded to this when they said the pride of established users always goes before ever kowtowing to an unregistered editor. It seems to me they were they scoring a decisive win by showing that Moor has a massive 12:1 majority on Google search before the admin tried to muddy the waters with their input. But their argument has no merit because there is no strict rule regarding Wp:commonname and book searches. Take Kolkata (Indian name for Calcutta). Internet search: Kolkata108,000,000; Calcutta = 33,100,000. Book search: Kolkata = 474,000; Calcutta = 15,400,000 (a ridiculous 32:1 in favour of Calcutta according to published English literature). And yet what is the name of the city on Wikipedia? The Indianised Kolkata. That shows the metric for book results mean nothing. It is the name that is most commonly used; for this page it is Rowton Moor (+940,000 by Google). Unfortunately I think the real issue here though (well it has taken two years!) stems from the Wikipedia Establishment - (and ignoring WP:GF) - being unable to concede an argument on a so-called good article (one that doesn't even use the proper name).109.149.211.52 (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a particular expert in this domain - I just wrote the article on it ;p. While I can't consult my sources directly (currently approximately 5,000 miles away from my library), the standard works pretty consistently refer to it as Rowton Heath (the battle, at least) - as does English Heritage. I'm happy to discuss this with you; perhaps we could go for a middle ground? If you can provide reliable sources that refer to "moor" rather than "heath" we could, for example, set up a redirect and list it as a name ("the Battle of Rowton Heath, also known as the Battle of Rowton Moor, was..."). Ironholds (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight, so if "Rowton Moor" is preferred, then go for it. AGF works both ways, buddy: I was just trying to be helpful by making sure you've done your due diligence and investigated the other side of the argument. You're right in that I have no knowledge of this battle. I'm just a drive-by editor wwho happened to list it in WP:Selected anniversaries/September 24 and touched the talk page, so it was in my contribution history. There is no such thing as the "Wikipedia Establishment". —howcheng {chat} 09:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the solution suggested by Ironholds. Both titles are used "commonly". Incidentally the Victoria County History account of the Civil War here does not give the battle a title, but names its site as Rowton moor ("moor" being in lower case). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Neat :). Redirect created, and lead section changed - does anyone have further thoughts on this matter? Ultimately consensus boils down to "the decision that least-annoys everyone equally", so I expect some annoyance, and I can't see the original pagemove request succeeding - but if there are further tweaks we can make that both sides can be mildly grumbly about, I welcome them. Ironholds (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia in the habit of renaming history?

I just saw this article link in another link about Morgan's Mount and saw the title of Battle of Rowton Heath. What?? So I come here only to find that there has already been a years old disussion about this very issue. It's frustating to see that instead of accepting the name is Rowton Heath is an error, the established editors have doubled down on the IP, kept the wrong name as the article title and put the correct name as a mere addendum. Unbelievable!

It just reinforces my view that Wikipedia editors will live with wrong facts (to win an argument) than accept an error and make it right. It's always been the "Battle of Rowton moor", Rowton Heath is a modern collaqualism. To double check this I just did a recheck with a google search and found that "Rowton Heath" is the diminutive name with 151,000 hits while Rowton Moor remains double that with 313,000 "hits". It's quite obvious who is right! I live in Cheshire, so I am better qualified than an American and whoever to know what the proper name of this battle site should be. But for a global audience, that means a false name chosen by powerful editors who have no clue about what they are talking about. The name of this article should be the "Battle of Rowton Moor" and the redirect should be to "Battle of Rowton Heath". 194.75.10.114 (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This links shows the name of the area was known as Rowton Moor on an 1831 map at the Library of Scotland. But hey let’s go with wrong version because self titled senior editors on this site are never wrong. 82.132.238.34 (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)