 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
I wonder if this article and Richard III Society should be merged? Avalon 04:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
This month's edits by user:Solatstone appear to be written by a member of a mentioned organisation ("we"), and I think that might be inappropriate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.67.195 ( talk) 11:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I've edited the relevant section so it hopefully now has a more neutral point of view and reads less like an advert for the organisation. RoryKat ( talk) 21:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Should this article really be in the "English historians" category? "Ricardians" could be a category for historians - "Ricardian" is not a historian. This seems so clear that I wonder if I have missed something obvious, hence this note without an edit (as yet - nb. that I have made unrelated changes in the first paragraph. "unsigned preceding comment" written by self in error). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJ Gordon ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Made alteration as no objections raised. ( RJ Gordon ( talk) 22:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC))
Entry changed on the Society's request (I am developing the Richard III wiki). Jackiespeel ( talk) 21:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The Richard III Society should have their own article given that they found the body of Richard III, a significant historical contribution, comparable to Howard Carter finding the tomb of Tutankhamun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.40.25 ( talk) 18:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Go on then! WP:BEBOLD. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 09:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the section on the Ricardian Friends oraganisation, as absolutely no sources reliable or otherwise mention them at all. A non-entity of a group indulging in a touch of self-aggrandisment I suspect. >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 21:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
I wonder if this article and Richard III Society should be merged? Avalon 04:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
This month's edits by user:Solatstone appear to be written by a member of a mentioned organisation ("we"), and I think that might be inappropriate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.67.195 ( talk) 11:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I've edited the relevant section so it hopefully now has a more neutral point of view and reads less like an advert for the organisation. RoryKat ( talk) 21:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Should this article really be in the "English historians" category? "Ricardians" could be a category for historians - "Ricardian" is not a historian. This seems so clear that I wonder if I have missed something obvious, hence this note without an edit (as yet - nb. that I have made unrelated changes in the first paragraph. "unsigned preceding comment" written by self in error). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJ Gordon ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Made alteration as no objections raised. ( RJ Gordon ( talk) 22:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC))
Entry changed on the Society's request (I am developing the Richard III wiki). Jackiespeel ( talk) 21:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The Richard III Society should have their own article given that they found the body of Richard III, a significant historical contribution, comparable to Howard Carter finding the tomb of Tutankhamun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.40.25 ( talk) 18:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Go on then! WP:BEBOLD. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 09:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the section on the Ricardian Friends oraganisation, as absolutely no sources reliable or otherwise mention them at all. A non-entity of a group indulging in a touch of self-aggrandisment I suspect. >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 21:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)