Talk:First Treaty of London

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 19:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that by the First Treaty of London England was to gain more than a quarter of France?

• Source: Wagner, John A. (2006). Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Greenwood. ISBN 978-0-313-32736-0. Page 198. ("Edward was also to receive, in full sovereignty, most of southwestern France, about a quarter of the kingdom.")

• ALT1: ... that by the First Treaty of London the King of France was ransomed for the equivalent of the English Crown's income for 20 years? Source: Rogers, Clifford J. (2014) [2000]. War Cruel and Sharp: English Strategy under Edward III, 1327–1360. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press. ISBN 978-0-85115-804-4. Page 389.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Karl Malte von Heinz
• Comment: Happy to email copies of the sources.

5x expanded by Gog the Mild (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 83 past nominations.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC).

• Expanded article, well-written, no copyright issues or plagiarism; hooks are cited and interesting (I slightly prefer the original one), QPQ done. Dahn (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

So do I, and thanks for the review. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Name change?

Slightly puzzled by the moves today of Treaty of London (1358) to First Treaty of London and Treaty of London (1359) to Second Treaty of London. I can't find any discussion on it. I wasn't aware these were WP:COMMONNAMEs - if they are I would think it could only be in relation to each other rather than generally. I don't think omitting the year is helpful for identifying the treaty - particularly as there was at least one earlier Treaty of London (in 1241)[1]. There are a couple of dozen other treaties called Treaty of London so its puzzoling how numbering these two fit in? DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Also baffled by this move and disappointed that there doesn't appear to have been any prior discussion. Omitting the year just makes it harder to get to the correct article. This should be reverted. 2A00:23C4:AC9B:9C01:C9BA:99D5:CDFE:70FA (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Apologies both if the moves comes as a surprise. I had assumed that they would be uncontroversial. The changes are, I believe, very much in line with WP:COMMONNAME. For example

• "Mortimer, Ian (2007). The Perfect King: The Life of Edward III, Father of the English Nation. London: Pimlico. ISBN 978-1-84413-530-1" states on page 330 "known to historians as the First Treaty of London". In a citation he identifies one exception - Sumption who uses "the Treaty of Windsor ... therefore distinguishing it from the Second Treaty of London" and continues "Most historians since ... 1909 have used First and Second Treaty of London".
• Burne, Alfred (1999) [1955]. The Crécy War. Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions. ISBN 978-1-84022-210-4 indexes "London, First and Second Treaties of" on page 363 with five references.
• Rogers, Clifford J. (2014) [2000]. War Cruel and Sharp: English Strategy under Edward III, 1327–1360. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press. ISBN 978-0-85115-804-4 similarly indexes "London, First Treaty of" with four mentions and "London, Second Treaty of" with three on page 452.
• "Wagner, John A. (2006). Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-32736-0" Has entries for "London, First Treaty of (1358)" and "London, Second Treaty of (1359)" pages 197 and 198.
• Ormrod, Mark (1990). The Reign of Edward III. Yale Medieval Monarchs series. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-3001-1910-7 has on page 26 "The so called second treaty of London" which he indexes as "London, 2nd treaty of (1359)".

These are just the paper books I happen to have to hand. (More peripherally, Scotland: The Later Middle Ages has the same usage.) A quick scan of what's on line suggests that - bar Sumption and the FTL - academics are unanimous on this usage in their dozens and possibly their hundreds. Apologies for not discussing this earlier, but I had assumed - incorrectly - minimal interest in this obscure corner of history and that any discussion was likely to agree with the proposed. I shall not be doing that again, but hopefully you can see where I was coming from? And, in passing, it is good to see this interest in the period and topic. And the article is currently at GAN, would either of you fancy reviewing it? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)