User talk:Cnbrb

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Shena Simon, Baroness Simon of Wythenshawe when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I am very familiar with the show preview button, having been editing Wikipedia since 2006. I realise that the caption parameter is case-sensitive - clearly this was a very minor typo, easily fixed and doesn't really merit an explainer. Cnbrb (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry! I am guilty of templating a regular... I now see you are VERY experienced. Appreciate you taking it as a friendly reminder. Certainly meant no insult here. Keep up the good work! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Ha! No worries. I realise now it is a template alert and not a personal message! Cnbrb (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Ann Elizabeth Hodges.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   23:14, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Given that I received notification at 11 at night during the Christmas holidays, and that the file was deleted 11 minutes after notification, it's difficult for me to comment. The problem with Speedy Deletion is that it eradicates all descriptions, article usage and Fair Use Rationale, thus closing down any discussion. However, a search on the Internet Archive reveals that the photograph in question was the lede image on the article Ann Elizabeth Fowler Hodges and apparently had a very robust Fair Use Rationale: copyright owner is duly credited, use in article is justified, no free alternatives are available - all of which appears to comply with WP:NFCC. So it's a mystery why an image properly credited on-line with Wikipedia's rules should suddenly be treated as a violation. Cnbrb (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#F7  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh. Cnbrb (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Registered battlefield, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crossed swords was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m reaching out to get your thoughts on a proposal I’ve made regarding the visual standards for miniseries and limited series articles. Currently, MOS:TVIMAGE allows for either a title card or a promotional poster, but common practice has leaned toward title cards by default. This has led to many miniseries articles only using title cards instead of posters.

I am proposing we standardize the use of promotional posters for miniseries articles. The logic is two-fold:

1. Unlike ongoing series, miniseries have no "Season" articles to house their posters. The poster is the only asset that identifies the cast, setting, and genre at a glance—context a text-based title card lacks.
2. By standardizing this for miniseries, we remove the need for future "Title Card vs. Poster" discussions like this one.

I’m trying to build consensus to make the guidelines more definitive so editors don't have to keep re-litigating this for other miniseries. If you're interested in supporting this cause, voice out your opinions here. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)