Talk:Battle of Wigan Lane

Who is Digby?

In the "Battle" section, the article refers to someone named "Digby", apparently leading the Earl of Derby's troops. This person is never properly identified. Is this just a typo for "Derby?" The name of the Earl of Derby at that time was James Stanley--no "Digby" there. Who is this person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poihths (talk • contribs) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a mistake I have fixed it. -- PBS (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Wigan Lane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509070157/http://www.thomas-tyldesleys.co.uk/tyldesleys/original.htm to http://www.thomas-tyldesleys.co.uk/tyldesleys/original.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the first statement in the Aftermath

User:WatcherZero - Thank you for your edit and clarification, but I am still confused. Is the pargraph telling the readers that the Earl of Derby took 170 men to battle from the Isle of Man and that the survirors of the battle were hunted down and killed after they returned home? Who hunted them down? Why were they hunted down. Were they cowards who deserted? Thanks, VFF0347 (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

He conscripted 170 men to war from the Isle of Man and those that didnt fall in the battle itself were hunted to their death in the English countryside, essentially almost none of them returned home which for an island which would have had only a few thousand inhabitants in those days (I dont know the figure but I imagine it was low thousands) would have been a statistically significant proportion of the population being lost in the battle. WatcherZero (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:WatcherZero - Kind Sir, Thank you for your helpful comments. I have tweaked the language of the paragraph a little in an attempt to clariy the issue for readers like me. I hope you approve.VFF0347 (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of flag icons

@VFF0347: As per my edit, I think you need to first establish your interpretation is correct before going too far, because my interpretation (and that of others, given the number of times its used in battle articles) is different.

Per the guidelines "Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts..." Robinvp11 (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: Thank you for your comment. I am aware that military conflicts are an exception to the guidelines for flags in Infoboxes. I am also aware of the overarching guideline line that says that "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes...they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many."

IMHO the commander flags in this article do not add any additional information. Also because of the way length of the commanders names the flag force the names to wrap around making for an ugly presentation.

I also take exception to your comment where you speak of the number of times that flags are used for commanders in battle articles. That is certainly not true for the articles on the English Civil War, where this article resides. Of nearly 100 articles on the three English Civil Wars, many edited by you, there are only nine articles where flags are shown for commanders. In eight of those cases it seems appropriate in that alliances are involved and the allegiances of the commanders vary within a combatant category.

As opposed to being collaborative, I find your language to be rude. Who are you to be telling people what they should do?VFF0347 (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@VFF0347: I was looking at the battle because I've been doing some work on this area - otherwise I wouldn't have noticed or cared.

Who are you to be telling people what they should do? Coming from someone whose self-appointed mission is to wander around Wikipedia 'correcting things', that seems an odd response, but irony is not a universal trait;

Its a job that needs doing (let me know if you need ideas) but my point was if so, you should first make sure your interpretation of the standards you've decided to enforce is correct. Otherwise you could be wasting a lot of time - I thought that might be helpful but maybe not;

I've read the guidelines carefully; why would the guide bother to specifically exclude conflicts if they didn't want to exclude conflicts? (that's a rhetorical question).

In this case, let me quote; IMHO the commander flags in this article do not add any additional information. Also because of the way length of the commanders names the flag force the names to wrap around making for an ugly presentation. Far from enforcing a Wikipedia standard, you yourself admit you are making a personal interpretation.

You obviously didn't read the guidelines as carefully as you should have done, and now have to rationalise a decision already made (which happens a lot). So you accuse me of being rude, because that's easier than asking yourself what you should have done differently;

When I rewrite an article, its usually a couple of days work. The format, the flow, how it all fits together etc is carefully thought out, and I check it on a tablet (which is how 50% of users access it etc). They have also been assessed for correctness by other Wikipedia editors - so if you 'correct' my articles in this fashion, I will reverse them. I thought it would save us both time and energy to be clear on that. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: You remind me of Donald Trump. Instead of addressing my points in a collaborative manner, you attack me.

Even if it is my self-appointed mission to wander around Wikipedia and correct things, there are no rules or guidelines against such editing. Thousands of people do it every day. That's partially what Wikipedia is all about. Would you have the errors sit there and remain in the articles? And I dare say that you probably make small corrections when you see them in an article.

I'm not so sure that your interpretation about MOS:FLAG for battle articles is correct based upon usage. You implied that commander flags are used in most of the articles on battles. Your proof? I pointed out that over 90% of the articles on the English Civil War do not have commander flags. Your response? Or will you just attack me again.

With regard to the guidelines for MOS:FLAG, you act like the rules are black and white. They are not. There is a lot of personal interpretation going on daily. It does not say always use commander flags for articles on military battles. And as I pointed out (to which you again did not respond) there is an overarching guideline that says "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes...they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." Will you respond or attack me again?

And finally, if you spent a couple of days in rewriting this article it didn't show. There was no map. There were errors in citing references. There were broken reference links. There were confusing sentences with too many pronouns. There was a confusing lead paragraph in the Aftermath. You may want to look at the work that a Wikipedia editor and I did collaboratively to clarify some issues. Do you want to repond or just attack me again.

You may seriously want to take count of the number of disputes you are having with various Wikipedia editors and rethink the meaning of collaboration. Don't bother to respond. I am done talking to you. VFF0347 (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise you were talking to me, I thought you were just talking at me; there's a big difference;

For my own self-respect, please note that at no stage have I claimed to have 'edited this article.' Yes, reading what I've actually written is apparently a challenge for some editors.

If you think I've been attacking you, then you may be too sensitive to survive in Wikipedia;

If you could tell me what you want me to respond to, it would help because this seems to be several paragraphs of self justification.

An American retiree accuses me of being 'like Donald Trump'; the unkindest cut. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)