Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)

Edit on 25 March 2011

Stuck

 – No consensus so far. -Trevj (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit by user: Nikkimaria on 25 March 2011 converted this page from a disambiguation page into an article. Unless it can be show that there is a clear preference for one of the terms, without WP:ENGVAR problems, then I think that this page should remain a disambiguation page ("Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous, and so may refer to more than one topic which Wikipedia covers" (WP:DAB)). If there is a clear topic such as Guy Fawkes Night then this page should either become a redirect to that page or that page should be moved here. What is not need is a content fork. -- PBS (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a content fork, it's an article about the tradition of Bonfire Night as celebrated in different parts of the world. You're welcome to expand it to better encompass the different elements of that tradition. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no tradition of Bonfire Night as celebrated in different parts of the world. There is a tradition among some commonwealth countries to commemorate Guy Fawkes Night, but for example the building of bonfires to celebrate Queen's Birthday long weekend in June, Australia has nothing but a name in common with Guy Fawkes Night. To use the example from the disambiguation page it is like creating an article on Mercury (planet) and Mercury (metal) on the same page because they share a common name. I think that the old disambiguation format is better. -- PBS (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not true. Mercury the planet and Mercury the metal (and Mercury the god, for that matter) have nothing in common but the name; Bonfire Night traditions have not only the name, but also the practice of building bonfires, having fireworks, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This page plainly does not work as an article on a specific topic, which "Bonfire Night" isn't. Its only useful purpose is to point people towards the specific topics meant by the expression "Bonfire Night" in different parts of the world. It therefore has more of the character of a disambiguation page than an article. Its existence in either form cannot be argued to provide the proper location for material on one or more of the topics it points towards, which is what Nikkimaria is seeking to do at Talk:Guy Fawkes Night. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You're quite mistaken. This article is about the broader tradition of Bonfire Nights, of which Guy Fawkes Night is an example. As such, it is a perfectly appropriate place for material on the topics it's discussing. Admittedly it is quite short at the moment, but you're welcome to help expand it if you so choose. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

But there is no "broader tradition of Bonfire Nights". Several different traditions have bonfires in common. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Reinstate So, here's the previous page from 03:54, 17 January 2011. I think that:

• A hatnote won't really fit in, unless Guy Fawkes Night is moved to Bonfire Night (with a redirect in place from Guy Fawkes Night)
• If it can be agreed that there is no primary topic, then the old DAB page should be reinstated, with the current name retained.

--Trevj (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I am against moving Guy Fawkes Night, which is a very specific topic, to Bonfire Night, which has several meanings. I certainly support reinstating the DAB page, as proposed. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am against either action (obviously), as this article has too much viable content for a dab page - it's an independent topic from Guy Fawkes Night, though the topics are related. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's a topic (that is, a single specific topic), can anyone say what is the nature of the topic and the approximate date of this Bonfire Night? Moonraker2 (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "nature" beyond what's in the article. Dates are provided in the article. Perhaps you would be better able to understand by looking at articles on similar topics? See for example National Day, Republic Day or Liberation Day. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are useful links and do indeed put things in context. However, the distinction as I see it between Bonfire Night and National Day, Republic Day or Liberation Day is that their contents (with some exceptions, e.g. Republic Day#January 26 in India, Republic Day#March 23 in Pakistan) do not warrant separate articles in their own right.

Here, we have separate articles for Guy Fawkes Night, Eleventh night and St John's Eve. A reference to bonfires could be added to Queen's Official Birthday#Australia and the dab page could be reinstated, referring to the separate articles. The 2 valid references regarding environmental impact and safety could be included at Guy Fawkes Night, as they are specific to the UK. References could be sought for the other articles, if there are similar concerns/issues abroad.

Perhaps a compromise can be reached by reinstating the dab page but including a little more detail than was previously present, within the recommended layout at MOS:DAB --Trevj (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also object to that, as there is more valid content on this page than can be included on a dab page, but which would not be suitable for inclusion on one of the other pages you mention. In regards to environmental impact and safety, while the examples given were for the UK, I would not agree that the point is specific to the UK - surely a bonfire in Australia causes as much environmental damage as one in London? As I've said, this page is far from finished - I'm sure more global examples can be found. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How about including a hatnote like {{See also}}? That'd mean readers arriving at Bonfire Night would be able to quickly navigate to a more specific page, without needing to skim through the article and find the link. This would save them time. --Trevj (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: environmental impact and safety - are there sources about Australian bonfires giving rise to the same issues? What are the scales of bonfires around the world? Presumably a large bonfire anywhere will be potentially more problematic than a smaller one. But perhaps the authorities in other countries are more competent in managing the risks than in the UK. (That's obviously not an NPOV comment, but is just given to stimulate thought.) Can you see a way for consensus to be achieved with respect to the content of this article? --Trevj (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the current hatnote work as a navigational aid? As to your other questions, I'd have to examine the sources more closely - as I've said, I haven't yet fully developed this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I've added the 2 other terms which have separate articles. What do you think? It's a little lengthy but is the best I could come up with, apart from using 'UK' in place of 'United Kingdom'. But if the Queen's Birthday celebrations in Australia ever get their own article, then it'll be far too long with that included, IMO. I think everyone understands that you'd like to continue to develop things and I'm sure the other sources will be included in due course. --Trevj (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Coming in response to this notice -- my initital reaction is that this is a pretty pathetic article with little scope for expansion. The first paragraph is merely disambiguation content in paragraph format. The only references are for tangential topics such as the environmental impact of bonfires and the threat of a strike as a political bargaining chip. I think this was better off as a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 12:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A "pretty pathetic article"? As I've said, the development of the article is not finished, so I suggest you make constructive commentary instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Pathetic and I see little potential for improvement. If you can improve, prove me wrong. Till then, I will continue to express my opinion as I see fit. older ≠ wiser 22:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding development of the article, we know that Wikipedia is a work in progress. The article can continue to be improved. The question is whether readers arriving at Bonfire Night (either via a wikilink ot the search box) will find its current (and to be expanded) content immediately useful... or whether their ultimate destination will be one of the articles describing specific celebrations. There probably isn't an easy way to gather such data. --Trevj (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Trevj, you were right to begin with, higher up the talk page. This is a disambiguation page and plainly cannot aim to cover all of the Bonfire Nights around the world. I also do not quite see how it can be taken over by one of them, as each Bonfire Night tradition has its own article already or else has yet to be linked from here. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I now propose copying the current contents of this article to Bonfire Night (general celebrations) and restoring the dab page at Bonfire Night. (Note that Bonfire Night (general celebrations) could also be included in the articles listed on the dab page.) --Trevj (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(Or moving the current contents and copying the dab page back - as the edit history for the current contents may be of more interest than those of the dab page.) --Trevj (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems unnecessarily complicated, especially given that the hatnote serves a disambiguatory function. I see no compelling reason to move anything anywhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I support Trevj's intention to copy the current contents to Bonfire Night (general celebrations) and to restore the dab page at Bonfire Night. A very sensible outcome. Moonraker (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can see no reason to object to this page. It is comparable in its purpose with Labour Day and Thanksgiving, for example, although it overlaps somewhat with Bonfire and could perhaps be merged with that page. Sussexonian (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Trevj's plan to copy the current contents to Bonfire Night (general celebrations) and to restore the dab page at Bonfire Night has something to be said for it, although on thinking it over I'm not sure that "Bonfire Night (general celebrations)" is the best title. A dab page is needed for Bonfire Night, but could we just clarify what is intended to be the scope of the new "general celebrations" page? Moonraker (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a merge with Bonfire should be discussed, then. (I recognise that Bonfire Night (general celebrations) perhaps isn't the best solution.) Anyway, there's certainly some content forking with the current arrangement. I am also concerned that the WP:WPDAB tag has been inappropriately removed from this page twice [1] [2], apparently without any discussion with project members (archive). I therefore suggest that it be replaced without delay. --Trevj (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no requirement to discuss such tag removal with project members, and since this is no longer a dab page having a dab tag on it would be inappropriate. I disagree with merging the page with Bonfire also - it's an independent though related topic, and would certainly be WP:UNDUE there, although it can certainly be mentioned and wikilinked. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, that may be true. But my view remains that the article contents were changed from a dab page to the makings of a separate article without broad consensus. For the record, I'm placing a {{Pls}} note on the project talk page. In light of the above discussion, I trust that this will not be seen as inappropriate. (Removed: erroneously placed by me.) --Trevj (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The page is very odd at the present. There is a disambiguating hatnote, then the first paragraph essentially reiterates the disambiguation. There is nothing that unifies the various events apart from the use of bonfires to celebrate. I'd support merging the current content into bonfire and restoring this as a simple disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The hatnote was added more recently: [3], [4]. --Trevj (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the hatnote was added as a compromise, I'd be happy to remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Then the disambiguations would then be buried in prose and we'd be left with an article having an ambiguous title purportedly on a topic about separate types of events where the only commonality is the use of a bonfire in the celebrations. That seems decidedly unhelpful. older ≠ wiser 15:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The hatnote tries to fulfill the page's original disambiguation function, but for me it underlines the fact that there is no need to use the page as an article. The hatnote begins "This article is about the general tradition of bonfire celebrations..." — but there is no general tradition of bonfire celebrations. A tradition arises in the context of a particular culture, and there are a variety if different bonfire traditions which merit an article. If they all came out of some primeval general tradition of celebratory Bonfire Nights, is there a reliable source for that? Moonraker (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're looking at this the wrong way, Moonraker. What is the "primeval general tradition", as you define it, of something like National Day or Liberation Day? This article is similar in type to those. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Both of those article do have a common theme -- that of the date of nationhood or of liberation from a colonizing power. That some events happen to have a bonfire in common is merely coincidental. older ≠ wiser 16:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm reverting to the previous dab version by Dalejarvis, dated 03:54, 17 January 2011, because no new consensus has been reached as a result of this discussion. --Trevj (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And I've reverted you. Whether or not your interpretation of the discussion and of the issues at play here is correct (I would argue that it is not), you were clearly involved in the discussion, and seeing as consensus is not clear you should not be implementing your view. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And I've reverted you. The discussion has not produced any rationale for keeping a separate article about events with only a coincidental relationship. older ≠ wiser 13:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You too are too involved to implement that supposed result. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has gone around in circles with you being pretty much the only person wanting to keep the article. One person disagreeing cannot prevent consensus. older ≠ wiser 13:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As Trevj points out, there is no consensus, and even if there were you are too involved to implement it unless it were far more clear-cut. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's one opinion. I see one editor somewhat obstinately blocking consensus. older ≠ wiser 13:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Bonfire night in Northern Ireland

Page 54 may be of interest. I must admit it's the first I've heard of it. Parrot of Doom 22:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Added to St John's Eve#Ireland --Trevj (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I misplaced this so it was removed. Now reintroduced at Eleventh Night. Apologies for the mix-up. --Trevj (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources relating to various traditions in Australia

I'm depositing here the sources I found relating to Guy Fawkes Night and various bonfire and firework festival traditions in Australia (the current text of this article gets some things wrong about the Australian traditions, as the change in dates and the timing of firework bans varied from state to state within Australia).

• Territory marked self-government with new cracker night, Mark Schliebs, The Australian, 3 January 2011
• Cracker Night was once the biggest night of Brisbane's year, Neil Wiseman, The Sunday Mail (Qld), 24 October 2010
• Crackers were some bang-up fun, Brendan O'Malley, The Courier-Mail, 2 September 2009
• Halloween: from pagan ritual to party night, Nicholas Rogers, Oxford University Press, 2002 (see page 37)
• A guide to Australian folklore, Gwenda Davey and Graham Seal, Kangaroo Press, 2003 (see page 78)
• The Greenwood encyclopedia of world folklore and folklife, William M. Clements, Greenwood Press, 2006

  On page 290 is the following: "Another sign of cultural modification is the transmutation of the religious-political commemoration of Guy Fawkes Night in early November into 'Cracker Night', a festival of some temporal mobility, of ambiguous significance, and with different dates in various parts of the continent."

• And as before, the pdf with pointers about Empire Day and Cracker Night (tangentially related, but definitely related if you read the above sources as well): Empire day to Cracker Night revels, Ian Warden, National Library of Australia News, May 2008

Hopefully those will be of some use to anyone looking to expand this page. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Some of those look very promising. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion GTBacchus^(talk) 00:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Bonfire Night (disambiguation) → Bonfire Night – Subject to consensus of the proposal at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move, it could be considered that there may remain no primary topic. In such a case, Bonfire Night should be the dab page. It's acknowledged that there may be alternative views suggesting that Guy Fawkes Night be moved to Bonfire Night instead. This could be helpful in the case of inexperienced editors referring to Guy Fawkes Night as Bonfire Night when creating new wikilinks. Dependent on the outcome of any further research into the common name (as suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonfire Night with the Find sources notices), this may not receive consensus support. I'm therefore proposing the move of this page, in order to hopefully simplify matters. Subject to consensus of both discussions, if a number of new wikilinks to Bonfire Night are subsequently created which should really be destined for Guy Fawkes Night (I amended a number myself at around 12:30, 7 July 2011) the articles could be moved again accordingly to avoid WP:TESTLINK issues. --Trevj (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge into Bonfire Night. Having two articles to say "people light bonfires on different nights" is unnecessary. Scolaire (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This should wait for the other move discussion to finish, and then (if needed) be handled with a speedy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point - thanks. I'm not very knowledgeable on speedies. I only proposed it here now because the other move (if undertaken) would have implications for this article. --Trevj (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The general Bonfire Night article already acts as a "dab" to the different "bonfire night" articles. Replacing it with a dab page would be regressive. --RA (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Procedural close - the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night has closed without a move. As this discussion was explicitly "Subject to consensus of the proposal" there, that means this discussion should be closed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A topic can't be both a part and a whole

Re this edit, Guy Fawkes Night is the first item on the "can also refer to" list. It cannot be the primary topic as well. I said in my own edit summary that Bonfire Night is in need of editing because, as 81.152.36.213 says, the first sentence says that the term refers specifically to the "Commonwealth event", but the article as a whole makes clear that "Bonfire Night" refers equally to Guy Fawkes, St. John's Eve, Eleventh Night and unspecified others. It is incorrect, therefore, to begin this page with "Bonfire Night is an annual British and Commonwealth celebration characterised by bonfires and fireworks, also known as Guy Fawkes Night, celebrated on 5 November." Scolaire (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification: I was unsure originally the best way to word the list. I have therefore changed it so that Bonfire Night/Guy Fawkes Night is not the first item on "can also refer to" list: it is just the primary item. This is consistent with the Bonfire Night article and the references given in the first sentence: "Bonfire Night" refers almost exclusively to the British and Commonwealth celebrations, not usually the nights with different names (St John's Eve, Eleventh Night). 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, you might want to see my requested move at Talk: Guy Fawkes Night. The problem here seems to be caused by how Bonfire Night and Guy Fawkes Night are spread over two different articles. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish you luck with your RM, but at the moment you have only one "support" and one "oppose". In the meantime, you have no consensus for your edits here or at Bonfire Night. Please do not edit-war. Scolaire (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I have sources to support my edits. You have deleted the sources and included information that contradicts. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

So wait a while and see if you get a consensus. In the meantime, this counts as a fourth revert for the purposes of 3RR. Please self-revert. Scolaire (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I am not the same user as the registered user. Requesting a citation is not a revert. The assertion has not been supported and should be. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Myopic naming

   We yanks have a customary expression whose exact etymology is a little vague, but can serve as a stand-in for the matter at issue here. I would oppose (as my markup is intended to emphasize) an article Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as worthy only for a dict (where the R would of course be downcased) and not for WP, even if there seemed sufficient WP:RS to make it worth breaking out Management of passenger seating during final evacuation of ''S.S. Titanic'' as a separate article.
TO BE CONTINUED
--Jerzy•t 07:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)