Talk:Bonfire Night

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bonfire night in Northern Ireland[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Sources relating to various traditions in Australia[edit]

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).

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

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

Where now?[edit]

After the AfD was closed with a keep, I am still at a loss to know where this page is going. A hatnote says "This article is about the general tradition of bonfire celebrations", but there is no such 'general tradition', except perhaps that primitive human communities living in temperate or cold climates all needed fires at night. For that, we have Control of fire by early humans. As there are specific articles on each of the important bonfire traditions, distinguished from each other at Bonfire Night (disambiguation), and as all these traditions have in common is bonfires, what will this page be about? Moonraker (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest expanding the content related to impact of Bonfire Nights, such as environmental concerns, social issues, etc. The religious issue is another possible aspect to explore. I haven't had a chance to look at all the sources above, but some of them should be helpful for expansion of different aspects of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Environmental concerns, social issues, and "the religious issue" don't seem to have much to do with a general tradition of bonfire celebrations. No doubt all bonfire celebrations can give rise to "environmental concerns", but then the same can be said of all bonfires, which I suspect is where the environmental impacts of bonfires belong. Can you please clarify what the 'religious issue' is with regard to a general tradition of bonfire celebrations? Moonraker (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in the article, these bonfire celebrations (with the exception of the Queen's Birthday) tend to have religious roots or associations. That aspect can be further expanded. As for your point about environmental impact, you're welcome to add content about the environment to Bonfire, but surely you would agree that having multiple simultaneous bonfires, with the possible addition of fireworks or burning effigies, would have a greater environmental impact than a single isolated bonfire? And therefore, that an event centred on bonfires has a significant environmental impact, as is suggested by reliable sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see that a lot of simultaneous bonfires can have an environmental impact, although I suspect it would take a tremendous number to amount to the equivalent of one coal-fired power station. I'm not sure this is anything to do with a general tradition of bonfire celebrations. I'm getting the impression that this article is intended to deal with anything which the various kinds of "bonfire night" have in common. If that's it, maybe the hatnote could be refined in that direction? And, indeed, if all of the various bonfire nights are the subject of the article, perhaps the better title is Bonfire Nights? Moonraker (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the title change, but what did you have in mind for the hatnote? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "This article is about the traditions of bonfire celebrations and what they have in common"? Moonraker (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have some concerns over the validity of the closure. Despite this, for the moment, let's have a go at introducing some sections to the article and work from there. --Trevj (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned at AFD, in my view a good starting point would be to move into this article the text on Celebratory bonfires and Religious uses now at the Bonfire article. Most of the text there (not all, but most) deals with events with multiple bonfires, held at night. The Bonfire article itself should be a very brief stub (maybe it's not needed at all and should simply redirect to Wiktionary) which focuses on what a bonfire actually does, rather than on their celebratory and/or ritual significance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be a little like moving the contents of Pumpkin into related articles, e.g. Jack-o'-lantern? I'm all for avoiding content forking but I'm not sure this would be such a good idea. Perhaps such a proposal should be discussed at Talk:Bonfire. --Trevj (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For information, the decision has been revised to No Consensus (my concerns were understood). --Trevj (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle's suggestion of moving text from Bonfire here could work except that the title of this article is Bonfire Night. Few of the worldwide celebrations at Bonfire#Celebratory bonfires will actually go by that name. I'm not opposed to the content of either article, and note that we do currently have a content fork. What bothers me is the title. Bonfire Night is either the common name (possibly referring to Guy Fawkes Night) or the dab page itself. The current title is misleading to readers. For those not following wikilinks but using the search box, they'll either be searching for Guy Fawkes Night or one of the other named celebratory bonfires. They're unlikely to be searching for general information. For that, they would probably have searched for 'bonfire'! --Trevj (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonfire Night → Bonfire celebration – Current title is misleading and unnecessarily complicated for users searching for any of the specific events listed at Bonfire Night (disambiguation) or Bonfire#Celebratory bonfires. If there is consensus for the move, I support Ghmyrtle's suggestions elsewhere to merge in the content at Bonfire and redirect that to Bonfire celebration. A redirect could also be created from Celebratory bonfire. --Trevj (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The current title is neither misleading nor complicated as claimed, and "bonfire night" is the name by which the occasion is widely known, which is why the article is titled as it is. The existing title conforms to WP:COMMONNAME while the proposed title does not. A search for the term "bonfire night" returns 1,660,000 Google search results while "bonfire celebration" returns only 19,700 results, almost two orders of magnitude fewer. — O'Dea (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As explained above: For those not following wikilinks but using the search box, they'll either be searching for Guy Fawkes Night or one of the other named celebratory bonfires. They're unlikely to be searching for general information. For that, they would probably have searched for 'bonfire'! Therefore, I restate that the current arrangement is unnecessarily complicated for users. --Trevj (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    These arguments are being pulled out of thin air. The proposer is suggesting how people will perform their searches without any evidence; he is producing nothing more than self-generated speculation to prop up his case for change. — O'Dea (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some might say that the supporters of article content at the current title are relying on self-generated speculation to prop up their case for non-consensus change. My interpretation is that such speculation assumes that what these events have in common (a bonfire and sometimes a name too) is sufficient for them to be the primary topic. Is there any evidence that people searching for 'Bonfire Night' are actually seeking general information about celebratory bonfires? Yes, I'm speculating about what people search for but IMHO it's common sense. This proposal has been made because there is no new consensus on non-dab content. Previous discussions have not reached consensus, despite compromises being offered. There is no new consensus, and this proposal is a formal compromise in an attempt to resolve the issues. --Trevj (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per common name. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 07:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The common name for the current material could arguably be simply "bonfire", particularly for the environmental issues - in which case the current content could be merged into Bonfire. Regarding search engine hits noted above, I note that Google searches are not references. Although this is not strictly policy, my understanding is that the search results should not be interpreted as meaning that an article about the common aspects of different Bonfire Nights should be entitled Bonfire Night. In fact, many of the search results would seem to endorse the view that the common name of "Bonfire Night" refers to Guy Fawkes Night (which is of course a separate discussion). --Trevj (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The common name for "Bonfire Night" should point to the dab page, as the current content is not the primary topic. --Trevj (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of Google results above has been misinterpreted by the proposer: the search results are not supplied as references but to anchor the WP:COMMONNAME argument. — O'Dea (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The common name appears to be the correct primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm a little confused. AFAIK, Guy Fawkes Night is the only bonfire occasion commonly called Bonfire Night. Shouldn't Bonfire Night point to Guy Fawkes Night and we have Bonfire night (disambiguation) for other bonfire occasions per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? The article attached to this page seems unnecessarily contrived to me. --rgpk (comment) 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • GFN is not in fact the only bonfire occasion commonly called Bonfire Night - there are a number of celebrations that use that name. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may well be the case, but are they generally referred to mainly by that name? I notice that St. John's Eve doesn't use that term in the article. Eleventh Night says it is "also known as... in common with", which suggests that the Irish perhaps don't generally call it by that name. There are several festivals that make use of bonfires (Lohri, in India for example), but if they are not generally called bonfire nights - should we be attempting to highlight that association? --rgpk (comment) 16:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is some confusion around why Bonfire Night isn't a redirect to Guy Fawkes Night. I'm not familiar with much of the edit history of Bonfire Night (content now at Bonfire Night (disambiguation)) but there have been WP:TESTLINK issues where editors have clearly been referring to Guy Fawkes Night but used Bonfire Night instead. That doesn't necessarily mean that Bonfire Night is the common name for Guy Fawkes Night. It should also be noted that the Irish St John's Eve reference has recently been corrected at the dab page. --Trevj (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bonfire Night should not be redirected to Guy Fawke's Night for the simple and obvious reason that the latter is only one of the countries that have bonfire nights. — O'Dea (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. The issue (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) is whether these other bonfire nights are known as Bonfire Nights, or they just happen to be celebrations with bonfires at night. --rgpk (comment) 20:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Bonfire Night at World Cup qualifier in Indonesia[edit]

At risk of appearing POINTy, would the Bonfire Night at Gelora Bung Karno Stadium qualify for inclusion in this article? Clearly it's not an annual event, but maybe such bonfires are commonplace when teams are defeated. --Trevj (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not based on that article alone, no. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Sorry for that. --Trevj (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonfire Night is not derived from Guy Fawkes Night[edit]

Currently the article says:

"A prominent Bonfire Night is that derived from the old English tradition of Guy Fawkes Night"

Bonfire Night is not derived from Guy Fawkes Night it is the common name for Guy Fawkes Night in England, they are on and the same thing -- "However, I'm certain that most people who attend Guy Fawkes' Nights – which are, after all, more commonly just called Bonfire or Firework Nights" (Is it anti-Catholic to celebrate Guy Fawkes' Night? by Guy Walters in the Telegraph on 1 November 2010 ) -- PBS (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, please come again. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT It did not evolve from the old tradition of Guy Fawkes Night any more than Thanksgiving evolved from the old traditions of Thanksgiving. It is the common name for Guy Fawkes Night and has been so for generations. The only reason the article about 5 November, is at Guy Fawkes Night is because the name Bonfire Night can be confused with other such events so it is better to title the article "Guy Fawkes Night" but that does not mean they are not one and the same thing. -- PBS (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be completely correct to say that Thanksgiving evolved from the old traditions of Thanksgiving. What about the relationship is confusing you? I might be able to help if you explained your reasoning further. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A prominent Bonfire Night is that which is synonymous with the old English tradition of Guy Fawkes Night. -- Trevj (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not it either. I've reworded again, see what you think now. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not replace the sentence with "Bonfire Night (also know as Guy Fawkes Night) is the annual celebrated/commemorated [take your pick] on November the 5 (or today often an evening of following weekend) in remembrance of the foiling or the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 when Guy Fawkes was captured shortly before he planned to blow up King James I at the state opening of Parliament." or something similar?-- PBS (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's a very convoluted sentence, and in terms of the modern celebration is not entirely accurate. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever wording is settled on, we still have a content fork. How about use of a {{Main}} note to Guy Fawkes Night, with summary style then used in that section? Also, there was no wikilink to bonfire, so I've introduced that in the lead. -- Trevj (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which section? There is not currently a section devoted exclusively to GFN. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, this article should be a redirect to guy fawkes night. But that's not going to happen, is it? --regentspark (comment) 23:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment! I am going to alter the words (keeping is simple to reflect that Bonfire night is the common name for Guy Fawkes Night and source it. -- PBS (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria why "associated with" instead of "common name for"? -- PBS (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Different connotations. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Bonfire Night is the common name then all the current sentence says is:
  • "Bond FireBonfire Night or Firework Night, is associated with the tradition Bonfire Night".
Which is not informative.
  • "Bonfire Night is the common name for Guy Fawkes Night"
is simpler and more informative (and carries a citation). There is no need to mention "tradition" in that sentence, as the next sentence "The celebration has lost its religious significance, ..." covers it and the first sentence as you have left it implies that Bonfire Night and Guy Fawkes Night are not one and the same thing. -- PBS (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it would be imprudent to remove "tradition" given that that is what the sentence is talking about. On this point, I'm not sure what you're referring to as "Bond Fire Night" - could you clarify? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bond Fire was a typo and C&P error. As I said the first sentence is misleading as it implies that Bonfire night is not the same thing as Guy Fawkes night -- that one has morphed into the other. Better to explain first it is the common name and let the second sentence explain further details. -- PBS (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is nothing more to say, or any citations to support the current wording I'll put common back into the sentence and the citation at the end of it. -- PBS (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wouldn't work. I think the current version is fine. Thanks for your interest, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then please address the issue I raised "As I said the first sentence is misleading..." -- PBS (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had, but for your benefit: the first sentence is not misleading, it says exactly what I meant it to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame more people have not joined in the conversion. I have rewritten the second sentence to indicate the traditional side of it. The names of Guy Fawkes night and Bonfire night do not represent different celebrations. They are one and the same thing, so we need to make that point by explaining that one is the common name for the other. -- PBS (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the wording, which was not very well written and included a reference from a blog which I've now removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NEWSBLOG -- PBS (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which I've reverted and reworded. The 'blog' you removed is actually a write-up from The Telegraph which is usually accepted as a reliable source. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think we need to change the UK to Great Britain as Guy Fawkes Night AFAICT is not celebrated in NI (fireworks are banned) and Irish bonfire nights come from other traditions. -- PBS (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to Northern Ireland, it seems implausible that both 11 July and 5 November are called "Bonfire Night". The first date is generally called Eleventh Night not "Bonfire Night" (multiple sources can be found if necessary) so need not be mentioned in this article at all (other than as a "See also"). There do seem to be some celebrations of GFN in N Ireland, but limited to certain communities and not as widespread as 11 July - and there it seems to be specifically called Guy Fawkes Night not Bonfire Night. So, I agree that the article should refer primarily to GB not UK. As the term "Bonfire Night" seems (AFAICT) not to be used in NI, in theory at least the article text shouldn't mention NI. I've made a few amendments along those lines, for clarity. I accept the point about the blog, by the way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Frequently Asked Questions: The Gunpowder Plot". www.parliament.uk. has a section called "How is the Gunpowder Plot remembered?" which contains information that might be useful. -- PBS (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. "It is still the custom for Britain....." is ambiguous of course (UK or GB?), perhaps deliberately. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the page is still confused about what it is dealing with, essentially I think because it struggles to find formulas of words to justify its existence. A header says "This article is about traditions of bonfire celebrations", which recognizes that it is about different traditions, and that reflects the origins of the page as a disambiguation page. I do not see how it can escape from that role, which is its natural one. The lead begins "Bonfire night is a yearly event...", but plainly that is not so, and the page goes on to deal in an understandably limited way with some traditions which are a number of different "yearly events". As Trevj says above, "Whatever wording is settled on, we still have a content fork". Moonraker (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you 100%. BUT the ADF and the requested moves #Requested move and talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move have closed with no consensus and happened within the last six months. It is customary to wait at least six months before initiating either again. Besides we know that there are some interested parties that will strongly resist the logical conclusion of what should be done about this content fork, so at the moment any such move to fix the content fork would close with no consensus. -- PBS (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Points taken. Moonraker (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pink Oboe I am not sure why you removed the and in: "The modern event is held annually on or near 5 November, although its religious significance has generally been lost and it is now simply a night of revelry and fireworks." I think the sentence would need some more words changed if the word and is removed. -- PBS (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting this edit here are the reasons why:

  • "Bonfire Night, and Fireworks Night, are the most commonly used names for Guy Fawkes' Night" that names are not just associated with the traditions of Guy Fawkes' Night. This change has removed a fact and replaced it with an assertion that is covered in the second sentence: "The modern event is held annually on or near 5 November, although its religious significance has generally been lost and it is now simply a night of revelry and fireworks." If Nikkimaria you do not think that this second sentence covers tradition adequately why not expand it? What have you got against the statement commonly used names?
  • "The [modern] celebrations are held throughout"->"Similar celebrations are held throughout" what are these similar celebrations?
  • In Northern Ireland, the term "Bonfire Night" is sometimes used for the Eleventh Night celebrations of 11 July," ->"In Northern Ireland, the term 'Bonfire Night' refers to the Eleventh Night celebrations of 11 July." See the comment above by Ghmyrtle that starts "In relation to Northern Ireland ..." Nikkimariabe, I think it would be a good idea to discuss your change fore making it.
  • "Like 5 November, this Bonfire Night also has its roots in the struggle between Protestants and Catholics for control of the United Kingdom" Well no it does not. The UK did not exist at the time either event took place. I will keep the sentence but modify it.
  • "has its origins in a religious celebration which featured prayers for bountiful crops"->"has its origins in a religious celebration and originally featured prayers for bountiful crops" I am not fussed about this one and will reinstate it.

-- PBS (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your first point, what expansion do you suggest in regards to tradition? Also, please spell my username correctly - I am not "Nikkimariabe". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry the "be" was an accidental concatenation now struck out. Expand the second sentence if you think it necessary to cover the tradition bit. What about the other points? Particularly the the UK one. It is not correct to say UK because the GpP was nothing to do with Scotland, and the the Boyne was to do with Ireland North and South so "in what is now the United Kingdom." is incorrect. As for your BRD comment the history of the article, it is you who is changing sourced text and adding unsourced text (see WP:PROVEIT) and making reverts without discussion (revert made to article 03:03, 31 October 2011‎ Comment on talk page not placed here until 07:03 which was after the revert). Why not discuss your proposed changes here on the talk page before making them? Discuss of course means giving people time to reply! -- PBS (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other points were already addressed, see the article. I'm afraid you're quite mistaken about BRD: I reverted to the last stable version of the article after a series of bold edits were made, and it is the responsibility of those making those edits to discuss them. I made no proposed change, I simply restored what was already there, then altered it slightly to address the reasonable points you raised. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering[edit]

If the Bonfire night of 5 November is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then the listing in the lead and the article needs to be sorted on some neutral criteria such as day of the year. -- PBS (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We also need reliable sources that state that the non-5th November celebrations in various parts of the world are indeed known as "Bonfire Night" (capital B, capital N), rather than as nights called something else but which happen to involve the lighting of bonfires. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

religious significance[edit]

this article states that November 5th has 'lost its religious significance.' I believe this to be a very misleading statement, as it implies that the origins of the celebrations are religious. This is wholly untrue: the origins of the celebrations stem from an historical event in English history; the events may have arisen over religious conflict, but the event itself is wholly secular - it cannot be found in the bible, for example. Moreover, the historical roots of the event are very much at the forefront of the celebration, with 'Guys' burnt in rememberence in virtually every town. The article requires much deeper detail of these events, and links to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agimouldi (talk • contribs) 14:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "religious significance" to "sectarian significance", which is a more correct wording. The history of Guy Fawkes Night is at that article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading...[edit]

As a newcomer to this page I found it disappointingly unencyclopaedic. I'd typed "Bonfire night" in the search box to see what information en.WP might have on the Italian traditions. Nothing it would seem... Until I spotted that the Italian article on bonfire night traditions, it:Falò di inizio anno, actually links not here but to Bonfire. The present page seems to be an annoying fork with Bonfire#Celebratory_bonfires. And to the general reader it risks giving a needlessly insular viewpoint. 86.164.149.143 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I'm not mistaken, there's currently no link to this page from Guy Fawkes Night. 86.164.149.143 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What an utterly pointless page[edit]

I can find only one link (irishcultureandcustoms.com) in this entire page that even remotely supports the idea that "Bonfire Night" refers to anything other than Guy Fawkes Night, while I found absolutely nothing here that discusses "Bonfire Nights" (plural) as an abstract concept. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of its text and the references discuss Guy Fawkes Night. If the only purpose of this page is to state the obvious (that a "Bonfire Night" is a celebration involving a bonfire), and tell people when/where the other nights are, then why is the other page which simply lists them not perfectly adequate for that very same purpose? How would adding the first line (or even the second) of this page to that list not serve exactly the same purpose as this page? Why should people like me, who arrived at this page wondering why it's been separated from the Guy Fawkes Night page as a supposedly separate entity, have their time completely wasted in this fashion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galactic envoy (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing facts[edit]

This type of mix up that I highlight below inevitable when a page is listing different traditions under the same name -- that is what we use alternative names (such as Guy Fawkes Night) or if one is not available we use dab extensions to separate out different meanings (per the example dab page Mercury). This page was a proper dab page until 2011 and it ought to become one again to reduce the confusion this page generates.

The sections "Social impact" and "Food" are confusing because they imply that there is only one celebration and that they are linked. They are not, they are different celebrations in different countries with their own traditions and problems (they don't even all share the name "Bonfire Night").

For example in the first sentence of the "Social" section it ends with "or fights" while that may be true in Northern Ireland is is also true in Newfoundland and Labrador or parts of Scandinavia?

It is similar with the Food section who says that "Candy apple, Bonfire toffee, Black peas, Parkin" are associated with celebrations in Southern Ireland, or Scandinavia?

-- PBS (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The citations need to be tightened up, and unreferenced sections (such as "Food") rewritten from scratch using good sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out that point of potential confusion - I have clarified that the foods mentioned are consumed mostly in England. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"and safety concerns in New Zealand have resulted in similar sales restrictions," This is the danger of using dated newspapers, those were under the past Labour Party government the current National Party government is not so concerned, and although Auckland local government as an example has recently banned fireworks from being let off in public places within Auckland (no bangers in the park) there are no such restrictions on the use on private property or for official shows.[1] It is a political issue in NZ with National, more relaxed about fireworks than Labour (National are much keener than Labour on the flag debate). The thing is that there are similar restrictions on the sale of Fireworks in England and Wales, [2][3] but this is not usually presented as a "safety concern" in the UK. -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Easily updated, though I don't expect we need to discuss the political issues in any depth here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What we need to discuss is moving any information that his unique to this article into articles like Guy Fawkes Night and also revering the unilateral move of this page to Bonfire Night (disambiguation). -- PBS (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

I have just updated the lead to reflect the fact that "Bonfire Night" is used primarily to refer to the 5 November (Guy Fawkes Night), whilst other events (Eleventh Night and St John's Eve) are occasionally described as "bonfire nights". I shall add some references for the first sentence. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. Dictionary entries do not count as reliable sources for re-writing an entire lead. Scolaire (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sources that describe a general event called "Bonfire Night" that is celebrated at different times in different places. The sources that you deleted made it quite clear that "Bonfire Night" refers to a specific event. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a single event celebrated at different times in different places. I've re-worded the lead accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but there is still nothing to show that "Bonfire Night" is the standard term for any of the other celebrations. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See this from Google Trends: precisely once a year, there is a huge jump in interest for this "Bonfire Night". There is no such observation for any of the other events that involve bonfires. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a good idea to change this into another Guy Fawkes Night article while there is an RM going on at that article's talk page. This article has been stable for years as an article on different celebrations in different countries, and we don't need two articles on one topic. Leave the "citation needed" tags on by all means, but anything more than that is unproductive at this time. Scolaire (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay: let's wait to see what happens. We can always open an RfC here if the two articles are kept separate. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bonfire_Night&oldid=1200253210"