User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 14/Archive 5

08/04/2009

Hello Necrothesp... May I ask you a question about the Royal Army Ordnance Corps entry you have authored? It has been mentioned on far too many occasions now in our "former RAOC community" that there are small areas of fact that need to be corrected and far more of the Corps History to be included. However, this seems to cause you to disagree to a high degree and given that your knowledge can only be academic (unless you did indeed serve in the Corps) it is causing some consternation among our fellowship. Could you comment on this please? Many Thanks.

Tonanti (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Tonanti216Tonanti (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I edit lots of dabs, so am concerned if I'm missing something. Is there anywhere where it says it must be written == == rather than ;see also? I've seen it both ways, but find in a short article or a dab, ==See also== can be too large and dominate the page. I've looked for this in the style guide but have found no indication either way. Could you let me know where the reference is? Thanks for your help, Hndis (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a section heading, which it says quite clearly in the MoS should be written with == ==. However, MoS:DP suggests another way of doing it, which I have put into the article. Necrothesp (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorrry to contact you again over such a small issue, but as I edit so many dabs, I want to be 100% sure I'm getting it right. Could you tell me exactly where on WP:MOSDAB it says this? I've seen it on no other dab. The 'may also refer to' I have only seen if the page is e.g. John Smith (disambiguation), then it will say 'John Smith is...' and then 'John Smith may also refer to...' Again, I'm not trying to be awkward, I just want to make sure if I've been making mistakes, I don't in future. Thanks, Hndis (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it said that in WP:MOSDAB. It says it in WP:MOS, which is the master manual of style page. I've personally seen it in many dabs. As to "may also be", see WP:MOSDAB#Order of entries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the speedy rename... I accidentally screwed up the capitalisation when I created it... --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The information I have added is directly relevant to the current news on him in the press. A simple google search will show this. His uncle has featured before and it is of notable interest his involvement with him as are the facts of the graphic designer Dizaei arrested in the latest incident. Not sure why you keep trying to remove my information. Like most other people on here I took time in writing this out and do not appreciate this being taken off! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehighways (talk • contribs) 00:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Several reasons. First, it's poorly written in an unencyclopaedic and unwikified style. Second, his uncle and his restaurant are not significant enough to have this much information about them, and his (naturally biased) opinion on the case is not really relevant. Third, it's highly POV. Fourth, it's entirely unreferenced. Fifth, every time you add it you delete the Footnotes section. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on this for past few days, as there was nothing at all on the GVCAC. Could you have a look at it and make any suggestions, one thing I am having problems with is referencing where there is more than reference to the same external link. thanks --Pandaplodder (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Police organisation in the United Kingdom, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Police organisation in the United Kingdom has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Police organisation in the United Kingdom, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment.

I have proposed merging the Alutor article into the Alyutors article. Discussion at Talk:Alutor#Merge to Alyutors. You are receiving this notice because you wikified the original article. --Bejnar (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edits reflect my understanding of postnominals in general and "PC" in particular, but could you point me to some sources? -Rrius (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I would direct you to my post on Wereon's talk page. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -Rrius (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you adding brigadiers to Category:Australian generals? As I'm sure you know, brigadiers are not generals in the Australian Army, whatever their equivalent rank may be in other armies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable question.

I was making the category consistent with List of Australian generals and brigadiers.

Perhaps that's not as good an idea as it seemed to be several hours ago!

(The difference also gives some justification for the separate existence of the list.)

OK. I'll just update the "List" from the "Category", and not vice-versa.

While I have you on the line,

• Do you have an opinion on the utility of the List article?
• Can you see any use for a category "Australian brigadiers"?
• Do you have any other thoughts / comments / suggestions / advice?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think lists can always be useful to see which articles need creating, so yes, I'd keep the list. A Category:Australian brigadiers is problematical in that by definition, almost everyone in the Category:Australian generals would also be in that one. It has generally been held that categorising officers by rank is not particularly helpful except to indicate who reached the top group of ranks (general officers, in this case). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm confused - perhaps you can sort me out?

1. Was an Australian Brigadier General a General? Yes
2. When did we have Brigadier Generals? 1901-1922
3. Should Brigadier Generals be kept separate from Brigadiers? Probably
4. I believe Brigadier General was a temporary rank associated with a posting? Yes
5. "A Category:Australian brigadiers is problematical in that by definition, almost everyone in the Category:Australian generals would also be in that one." - If you were to define it that way, which (I agree) would seem pointless, but to name it "Australian officers whose highest rank was Brigadier" is a bit of a mouthful, so I would call it "Australian brigadiers" and define it as "Australian officers whose highest rank was Brigadier".

By-the-way: The Category "Australian generals" contains quite a number of 1* - e.g. just from A & B

• (Brigadier Archibald Robert Allen - I removed him - perhaps I shouldn't have?) (WWII, therefore Brig, therefore NOT general)
• Brigadier General Robert Anderson (Australian Army officer) (WWI, therefore general)
• Brigadier General Alfred Bessell-Browne (WWI)
• Brigadier Arthur Seaforth Blackburn (WWII) - removed
• Brigadier General Reginald Spencer Browne (WWI)

Can you throw some light on any of this? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing yes. The Australian Army followed the British Army pattern. Until 1922 the British (and Australian) Army used the rank of Brigadier-General. This was a general officer rank, although it was only a temporary rank given to senior colonels in certain positions (mainly commanding brigades, as the name suggests). In 1922, the rank of Brigadier-General was abolished and replaced with two ranks: Colonel-Commandant (for senior colonels commanding brigades and establishments) and Colonel on the Staff (for senior colonels of equivalent rank in staff positions). These were not general officer ranks and were still only temporary appointments. In 1928, both these ranks were replaced with Brigadier, also not a general officer rank and still a temporary appointment. It remained a temporary appointment until shortly after World War II (I'm not sure of the exact date), when it became a substantive rank. To confuse matters more, Brigadier-Generals were often referred to simply as "Brigadier"! So, to simplify, officers in these ranks were generals until 1922, but not thereafter (although they retained the rank of Brigadier-General, and thus general officer status, if they had been promoted to it prior to 1922). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Given your confirming information, I have annotated the above. Interesting? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I do not appreciate you reverting all my changes. Please see this from my view, I have contributed to the articles in question by removing the brackets to red links, and generally tidying them up. And it seems bad faith, when you just come along and revert them, if you disagree with one thing such as the "service" not being used back when the DDI was a rank, then just change that. Please think about the time I have taken to do the work, which is not in breach of any guidelines. I am not going to edit war, you win. But just think about it please, and maybe in the future observe WP:AGF and WP:OWN. Happy editing & thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, also I have tagged the DDI article for having no lead section, and no references. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No lead section? Er, yes it does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Its OK, lets just call it quits =]. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 10:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No references? No it doesnt! Lol. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 10:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a good one! Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 11:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My wife was delighted to see that there was an article on her great-great-grandfather, so don't be surprised if you see me adding some family photographs to it on her behalf in the near future. Was there any particular reason you wrote about him, she asks? Regards (and with thanks on her behalf), Bencherlite^Talk 23:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add to the article (of course). One of my main interests is the British honours system and I have been working through the honours lists from 1920 onwards writing articles on those people who received high honours. So Burgess got an article because he was appointed to the Privy Council of Ireland in 1922. Incidentally, does your wife know if he was known as Henry Givens Burgess or just as Henry Burgess or by some other name? I couldn't find him referred to as anything other than Henry Givens Burgess or H. G. Burgess, but that was common for the media of the time. If he was commonly known by another name I'll move the article. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, this article title is worse than we started with! Firstly, she's not a "charity worker", she's a board member. A precedent (of sorts) was set with Sir Ian Kennedy (which was renamed from Ian Kennedy (lawyer) because there are two well-known lawyers of that name. Dame Josephine Williams conforms to this type and accurately describes the person as well. Millstream3 (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? As the chief executive she is presumably a salaried employee of the charity. In what way is that not a "charity worker" - i.e. someone who works for a charity? It is a practice usually deprecated to use a title as a disambiguator unless the individual is a peer or a baronet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be picky, but to me "charity worker" implies that she's doing rather than directing the work of the charity. Board members of charity and public sector organisations sometimes are and sometimes aren't "proper" employees - a lot have private contracts and pension arrangements that differ from employees. Millstream3 (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would still say she's a charity worker. She's just working for them at a higher level. After all, a person who works as a volunteer for a charity is just as much a "charity worker" as a salaried employee, so why not a high-level officer? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Jo Williams, as that appears to be the name by which she is actually known. Problem solved. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice solution! Millstream3 (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• (diff) (hist) . . John Wilton (general)‎; 00:23 . . (+16) . . Necrothesp (Talk | contribs) (←Redirected page to John Wilton (Australian Army officer))
• (Move log); 00:23 . . Necrothesp (Talk | contribs) moved John Wilton (General) to John Wilton (Australian Army officer) (standard naming)
• (Move log); 00:23 . . Necrothesp (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:John Wilton (General) to Talk:John Wilton (Australian Army officer) (standard naming)

Yuk!
"(standard naming)" Which standard? / Who's standard?
(In my completely unbiassed opinion, it's an ugly and stupid standard ... )
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not in mine. "General", apart from being incorrect (it should be lower case), implies that he only ever held that rank. His profession, which is what should be reflected by the disambiguator, wasn't general, but army officer. Take a look at Category:British Army generals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Take a look at Category:Australian generals
Yes, it should be "general", not "General".
But I really can't agree that it "implies that he only ever held that rank"!
"His profession, ... , wasn't general, but army officer." - Another "Hmmmm". I would say that was debatable. However, I'm not in the mood to debate it.
However, I will ask again: Which standard? / Who's standard? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Which produces the following disambiguators: Australian Army officer = 2, Australian soldier = 1, major-general = 1, general = 6, Australian general = 1, soldier = 2. Hardly either conclusive or a great beacon of consistency! That's why I pointed you towards Category:British Army generals. We generally try for consistency on Wikipedia. I'm a little puzzled as to why you would think his profession was his rank not his...profession! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Hardly either conclusive or a great beacon of consistency!" - Yes indeed. (That's what the "Hmmmm." was about.)
Note, however, that the Americans aren't consistent either. One is forced to wonder how the Brits were able to get consistency!
"We generally try for consistency on Wikipedia. - Agreed, but the success rate in achieving consistency is not consistent ... ;-)
"I'm a little puzzled as to why you would think his profession was his rank not his...profession!" - I don't. To me, what is debateable is whether "profession" is the "best" thing to be disambiguating upon. For example: John Raymond Broadbent (major-general) and John Raymond Broadbent (brigadier) - If you don't use the rank, what would you propose using to distinguish them from each other?
And for a third time: Which standard? / Who's standard?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we've got consistency by having a core of people who are interested in it. I also used to disambiguate as "general" until someone came along who suggested that "British Army officer" sounded better. On reflection, I agreed and so did a number of other people who write these sorts of biographical articles. Hence the level of consistency. Hence my statement that it is "standard naming" - as far as we have any consistency in military officer naming, the British officer categories show it, and I think that's a good thing. As to disambiguating officers with the same name, obviously a bit more creativity has to be shown there, but the occasion doesn't arise that often. I would disambiguate the two officers you mention as John Raymond Broadbent (Australian Army infantry officer) and John Raymond Broadbent (Australian Army cavalry officer) - after all, the major-general was also a brigadier once! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm. You have a number of points, but I'm afraid I haven't changed my opinion. "Australian Army officer" sounds like a category to me - it's too clumsy. "general" is concise, and there's no ambiguity that a (British or Australian) general is an Army officer. (And regarding "duplicates", I agree that "obviously a bit more creativity has to be shown there, but the occasion doesn't arise that often.")
As to "standard", well, I think you're being a bit "creative" with your language usage ...
When I'm in the mood, I'll raise the matter on one of the Milhist discussion pages and see what sort of responses it draws. (No doubt one of them will be yours!!)
Thanks for the "discussion" - interesting, entertaining and food for thought. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there certainly is ambiguity that a British general is a British Army officer. He could be a Royal Marines officer, an officer of the English or Scottish armies pre-Great Britain, an officer of the Indian Army or of several other colonial armies. As to my use of "standard", I didn't say it was a standard, but in my experience it is "standard" usage. My renaming was actually because I saw Wilton's name in Category:Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire and he stood out as being disambiguated differently from other military officers who appeared in that category and the renaming was therefore in the interests of consistency. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you added that information - it ties up quite a few loose ends. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You may care to comment at WT:MILHIST#Disambiguators for military biography articles, I thought it was you that had convinced me that British Army officer or equivalent was the most appropriate form, but I see above you also mention that someone else persuaded you, could you also pass this on to them if they are still about? David Underdown (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick note to draw your attention to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (law enforcement agency categories). We're setting out the UK LEA category guidelines there, and in particular whether to withdraw the "Police forces" categories and just use "Law enforcement agency" categories. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ninety:one 20:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the reason for deleting the category "Cornish people" from Barclay Fox, please? Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 09:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

He's already in Category:People from Falmouth and Category:Cornish people is therefore unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes! Sorry to be dozy. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 15:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I know praise from an inexperienced editor like me probably does not mean much to an editor like you, but what you did with Police Community Support Officer was really good. Dolive21 (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Which bit? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks. you saved me having to read the entire play for the i don't know how manyth (?) time, looking for any reference that could possibly define iago as a batman. it was one of those situations where one is 99.9999% sure, but doesn't want to take the chance of the original editor coming back and saying 'ha! in act 2 scene 4 blah,blah blah,......you ignoramus'.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I studied the play and was in it at school, so I can categorically say he was an officer. An aide, yes, a batman, certainly not! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure about your edits to "People from". Denys (who I knew personally) never considered himself to be "from Yorkshire". It was pure chance that he was born there whilst his father was stationed there. It does not make him a Yorkshireman, nor does it make him "from Yorkshire". Just as a baby might be born by chance somewhat prematurely, while the mother is on a journey, will not make the child "from" the locality where born. Born / From is a common confusion. Please would you consider reverting the changes? -- Algrif (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The "people from" categories are explicitly intended to indicate where a person was born and/or grew up, as they quite clearly state - they are not intended to indicate where a person lived in later life or which region he identified with. In this context, he certainly did not come from Cornwall. His identification with Cornwall is clearly indicated by Category:Cornish writers. This has been long-established and to make an exception for one individual would lead to the whole categorisation system becoming worthless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

np. I am an occasional contrib. here, as you are probably aware, so I am not always ever up to date with set practice on 'pedia. That is why I brought this to you here rather than simply reverting your edits. Thanks for the info. I will keep it in mind. -- Algrif (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Urghh! I can't see how anyone would prefer that! The scientific articles I used to read and write always had footnotes after punctuation. IMHO, the footnote "belongs" to the word not the punctuation. Oh well, something else that has been lost on Wikipedia... :-( Millstream3 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. I can see your point about it belonging to the word, but cosmetically I think it looks much better after the punctuation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, screen is different from print; and the style I'm used to is for print. I'll stick to my main interest, which is improving poor content on the UK health service.  :-) Millstream3 (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally disagree with you. If referencing was not a reason to prod, why would the message about improving the souricing be in the prod template? How are we to get these little used articles upgraded otherwise? Buckshot06(prof) 14:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:CONSENSUS, because your many {{prod}}s don't seem to have much support for them on your talk page, where several editors have both reverted them and asked you to refrain. I appreciate your frustration, but prodding everything in sight isn't the way to proceed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

From WP:Prod: "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate" (italics mine). Prodding is for articles which are total rubbish or blatantly non-notable, not for articles on notable subjects. If they lack sources then say so, but don't suggest that they should be deleted because of it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Necrothesp, thank you for your feedback concerning MOSBIO, specifically nationality in the lead of biographies. --Tom 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)ps is it "lede" or "lead"?? I still can't figure that out :) Cheers! --Tom 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm mystified as to why Wikidemon has a problem with this. It's the first thing I look for, along with dates of birth and death and occupation, all of which we include in the lead. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: For a "non-existent translation", there are a lot of pages where it exists!
(And no, I don't know what the best solution would be.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's because a lot of (particularly) non-native-English-speakers editing on Wikipedia tend to translate things literally and not intuitively. Personally, I'm completely against the idea that absolutely everything has to be translated into English if the term is widely understood and used in its native language. If Generalfeldmarschall is translated into English by military historians, it's invariably translated simply as Field Marshal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Please enable your email, or email me at dbwiki /at/ gmail.com, so I can explain the situation with regards to the list of medal recipients. It involves a sensitive BLP issue relating to an OTRS ticket. Please do not revert it again. Daniel (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the Cornish articles you have been writing - Just read Stephen Menheniott, very good treatment of such a sad subject. Could you add any more that you do to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/New articles please? It would be a shame for Cornwall Wikiproject members to miss out on your contributions. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Glad you liked the article. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You did a great job with improving the List of basilicas outside Italy!

Thanks Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It needed improvement and consistency. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for such kind words.

I'm afraid you will have to take this up with the manual style, or else User:Lightmouse/User:Tony1 - the developers of an automated script used by hundreds of other users. The script is intended to use "smart linking" and I cannot control its remit as it is written in code and part of my tool box.

I'll be continuing to use it until there's a consensus to stop. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually try editing instead of applying faulty scripts that don't require thought to the work of others into which considerable thought has gone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be like that. Infact it comes across as a little unkind. I've actually written several FAs and GAs.

What do you find faulty about it? If you have an issue, I've provided you a link to the authors of the script so you can raise it with them. If you're refering to Sir Philip Stott, 1st Baronet, then it's not more than a poorly sourced stub that needs attention. Basic nationalities are not required to be linked per WP:OVERLINK. Again, speak with User:Tony1 if you have issue with that. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

--Oh, see also the responses left under you on my talk. Good luck, :) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You will note then that Stott's nationality is British then, not English - that would be ethnocultural identity. Eitherway its unsourced mind. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to the many who insist on changing British to Scottish or Welsh! And in what way is the article poorly sourced? An obituary in The Times is an excellent source. Neither is the article a stub. My points about scripts stands - there are far too many people in Wikipedia these days who seem to do nothing except apply automated changes (frequently incorrectly or pointlessly) to others' hard work, and that is extremely irritating. And I wasn't aware Tony1 had any particular clout on Wikipedia - why do you keep referring me to him as though he was some sort of authority? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a good source I agree, but its presented as an external link. There is a grand total of zero inline citation. If you think it's a good article, take it to WP:GA and see what they think about that. You'll also note I didn't say it was a stub, I said it's not much more than a stub - it's two/three paragraphs with no clear sourcing, let's be honest (I mean it doesn't warrent falling out over, but really!).

I don't believe Tony1 is an authority as such (and never claimed so), but this is a collaborative project, we have to collaborate with others and their skill-set. Tony1 is clearly very closely involved with the output of the manual of style and I'm using a script that he rolled out. I'm trying to be helpful by providing you details of where to take your greivance, as I cannot change the content of the script.

That I've used a script is not a crime, and there's little to be gained complaining to me really. I'm merely one of hundreds of people who are using this. As I said from the start, if you have issue with its coding then you ought to take it to the developers, users who I'm confident wouldn't be granting this to users like me in bad faith or to be purposefully distruptive.

That all said, I have a book that has about 4/5 pages on Stott. I'll try and get round to padding the page out after Christmas hopefully. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a GA article and I've never put forward my own articles for any sort of status. But then, I don't write articles to pat myself on the back and get recognition, but for my own satisfaction and to inform our readership. I don't actually think inline citations are necessary when an obituary is quoted - it's obvious that the source is the obituary and unnecessary for every sentence to have a citation of the same article. Using a bibliography is perfectly acceptable in any publication unless a particular statement is unusual, controversial or comes from a different source from the main one. No reason why that shouldn't be the case on WP. To be honest, I think that with the explosion of projects on this and that, many on Wikipedia have lost sight of what it's meant to be - an encyclopaedia, not a bureaucrat's/IT expert's dream. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

With your recent and numerous edits of recipients of honours in the 2009 New Year's Honours List you have persisted in placing the incorrect link namely whenever you edit an article of a recipient; "XXX was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2009 New Year Honours" which is incorrect; the link 'Commander of the Order of the British Empire' or 'Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire' or 'Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire' or 'Member of the Order of the British Empire' or indeed 'Officer of the Order of the British Empire'; the only link whereby all of these are amalgamated is 'Order of the British Empire' which is the universal link which joins all of the classes of the Order in one article. If you wish to place a link you could place the category link which you have done; 'Category:Commanders of the Order of the British Empire' which is a link and does link to a comprehensive list of all recipients etc. of the many, many recipients of British honours. But your 'XXX was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2009 New Year Honours' does link to the correct article but with the wrong link it demonstrates unprofessionalism as well as lack of information if the editor does not know what link the article is to end up at. For examples of your mislink, please see articles Michael Chance and Jenny Abramsky. --PoliceChief (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a mislink. Please see WP:Redirect - "Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken" - before you accuse another editor of unprofessionalism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with redirects and they are perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. The fact you don't like them is, I'm afraid, immaterial. I do and Wikipedia guidelines quite clearly support me in this. If you wish to change them then that is your prerogative, but please change them correctly (as you did not do for Andrew Cahn - appointments to orders do not take an article - one is appointed Knight Commander, not a Knight Commander and certainly not an Knight Commander!) and do not expect me to change my edits to suit your POV. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Gazette have just completely changed their url scheme, I've just updated the template so everything should keep working, but you may need to force a purge of your cache to see the updated version, and if you spot any problems this may be the reason. For reference, the notarchive= parameter is no longer required. David Underdown (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed you had previously worked on this article and was wondering if you can advise on the name of the page. "John Ross" was much better known as "John Lockhart Ross" or even "Sir John Lockhart-Ross". For the moment I have added a re-direct (John Lockhart Ross) to the article, but I would like to update his name from "John Ross" to "John Lockhart Ross" in the article. I have explained more on the discussion page of the article. (I plan on expanding the article to include the fact that he was a British MP and his part in the Clan Ross). [I see also he is refered to as "Captain John Lockhart" in the "HMS Tartar (1756)" article]. --JohnReid Edinburgh (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Necrothesp/Archive 14. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tabletop unnecessary white-space changes regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So, the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly. Do members have the title of Hon, or Rt Hon like MPs? For instance the article Ian Paisley, Jr.. I really don't know, but think it's right up your alley. And if they do, are they used on Wikipedia? Canterbury Tail talk 19:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

British MPs don't have any title. Unlike many countries, "Hon" is only used by judges, not by politicians, and "Rt Hon" only by members of the Privy Council. So he'd only be Rt Hon if he was a Privy Councillor, which he isn't (although his dad is). Neither is used in the lead paragraph, although PC can be appended to Privy Councillors' names as a postnominal (there is argument going on as to whether this is allowed for non-peers - I have found and ample evidence that it is, although some people choose to ignore this and tell me I'm wrong). -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I wasn't sure but knew you were the person to ask. Canterbury Tail talk 13:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a user has been removing Category:Irish soldiers from British Army regimental categories. What are your thoughts on this? Kernel Saunters (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Completely wrong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Men of Irish nationality who served in the British army served in the British Army and not the Irish army and are ergo facto not Irish soldiers. Otherwise you are just "annexing" the page, old habits die hard my friend eh? I've created a category Irish soldiers in British Army which reflects the reality.

--Ponox (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Although I should point out that Irish people who lived before 1922 (when they acquired Irish nationality, having formerly had British nationality) were no less Irish and nowhere does it state on Category:Irish soldiers that it only refers to soldiers in the Irish Army. Oh, and there was no need for the snide remark - please take a look at Wikipedia:Civility. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Should the rename be to Irish soldiers OF the British Army so it covers the situation where a non-Irish serves with an Irish regiment? Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We are both getting mirrors of Wikipedia in a Google web search. Both terms are used, and a Google search on "Massacre of Braybrook Street": returns Shepherd's Bush as the third hit. GoogleBooks only has one result for "Massacre of Braybrook Street" (it's the same book on all 18 results), while "Shepherd's Bush Murders" gives eight different sources. Given that GoogleBooks gives a significantly higher number of reliable sources for the term Shepherd's Bush Murders over Massacre of Braybrook Street, I decided to make the move. If you feel there's a flaw in my reasoning please let me know, otherwise I'll move it back to Shepherd's Bush Murders. Regards. SilkTork *^YES! 18:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I only used Google as a backup. In many years of reading about crime, I have almost always seen the case referred to as the Massacre of Braybrook Street first and the Shepherd's Bush Murders as an afterthought if at all. That's what I based my original decision to name the article on. Of course, there's also the point that Shepherd's Bush is inaccurate in any case, since Braybrook Street is actually in East Acton! Shepherd's Bush was a journalists' mistake at the time which stuck. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been caught in that trap myself a few times. We cannot correct what we personally feel are "mistakes" (even if they are genuine mistakes!). We record what is out there. This incident is demonstrated by eight different sources to be called the Shepherd's Bush Murders. Under our naming policy we use the most common name as identified by reliable sources - Wikipedia:Names#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name. If you are able to demonstrate that Massacre of Braybrook Street is used by more reliable sources than Shepherd's Bush Murders then it would be appropriate for it to appear under that name. However, at the moment the evidence is strongly in favour of Shepherd's Bush Murders. The reason why we use the reliable sources rather than our own instinct is for the very reason that once on Wikipedia it starts to filter out into the community (as exampled by the Wikipedia mirrors in the Google web search), and as such an editor's personal views begin to influence other writers so that it gradually becomes reality. What is interesting is that very reliable sources do use Shepherd's Bush as the location - BBC, Independent, the Times, Telegraph. I know what you are saying, because the A40 Westway can be seen as the northern boundary of Shepherd's Bush; however, maps (such as Google Maps) do indicate that the area very near Braybrook Street is Shepherd's Bush. Do remember, also, that Shepherd's Bush is not a London Borough so it is not a geographically fixed location - if newspapers and estate agents identify Braybrook Street as being Shepherd's Bush then de facto it becomes part of Shepherd's Bush. SilkTork *^YES! 13:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

However, another trap is to take Google as gospel and to assume the internet is a better source than the printed word. Neither is true. Only one of the books, articles or chapters I've read on the subject appears on either Google search (e.g. True Crime Diary by James Bland, The International Murderers' Who's Who by Robin Odell, to name only the two I can find offhand, call the incident the Massacre of Braybrook Street). Google is not God and we should remember that. Google Books does not record everything ever written, but only a summary of certain books. As to Braybrook Street not being part of Shepherd's Bush - that is not my opinion, but a fact. The fact it was a journalist's mistake is actually recorded, although I'm afraid I cannot lay my hands on the source at the moment. A perfect example of your own comment about things being written, even if incorrect, later being taken as fact! It's as true for journalists as it is for Wikipedia - they do make mistakes. I am certainly not going to get into a edit war over it, since it is true that both names are used, but please bear my points in mind next time you move an article. Also note that I am an experienced editor and am fully aware of all the points you raise, including Wikipedia's naming policies. My naming of the article was not based on my opinion or "instinct", but on hard evidence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi I have started a page about the Combat Stress charity as it was missing, would you like to contribute? --Pandaplodder (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa, you're totally right about that. I actually checked up later and found this out, but by then the article was already deleted. Anyway, thanks for pointing that out and reminding me to get back to some history reading this weekend. Happy editing to you. FlyingToaster 00:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Does your reasoning make a difference between when a school should simply be covered and when it should have its own article? Your particular comment on AFD said it was notable per your usual reasons, but it didn't address the lack of sources that led to me voting for a merge. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If the existence of a school can be verified then it should have its own article. If that is just a stub then so be it; no Wikipedia policy says that we shouldn't have stubs. The fact it can't be expanded yet does not mean it can never be expanded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources for this article was the Sociedad Heráldica Española. I did a bit of digging. Are you aware it is a private venture? . dougweller (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your supernaturally quick response to request for source at Italian basilicas. Basilicas are not my thing, but looking round I notice that there are not only the two pages (a) Italy and (b) everywhere else, which make perfect sense, but also a rather unimpressive List of basilicas in France - unimpressive mostly because whoever did it didn't bother to translate it. I was thinking unenthusiastically of doing that, but having now seen your in every way superior list of all basilicas in the world (except Italy), I'm now wondering if the French one might be better simply redirected. However, I'd be glad to have a second opinion, you apparently being Mr Basilica, since it's a large page. HeartofaDog (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been meaning to get round to that page for a long time. The only advantage that I can see of that page over the master list (thanks for your comment, incidentally - it took a lot of work) is that it groups basilicas by region. Somebody's obviously put a lot of work into it, so I'm not keen on redirection, but... -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK - if I knock it into shape and translate the names but leave out the images, as IMHO we don't need them in two places, how would that be? HeartofaDog (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the images aren't very well inserted in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. There's a longer discussion to be had here - but it's not a matter close enough to my heart for me to get involved in, thank goodness, so I pass on it - for now. HeartofaDog (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't ever Anglicise the name of a French church. Neither would anyone else I know. They're too well-known under their native names. It's one of those cases where WP:Use English doesn't apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I seriously dispute that, except in a handful of cases - "well-known" to precisely who? - but I don't want to make on an issue of it here and now, and will leave N-D des V alone. I hope very much however that this does not mean that you'll be going back over the rather dull list of French basilicas to change all the links back to "Basilique de..."?! HeartofaDog (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no. As you can see, I've Anglicised all the names on the list of basilicas for consistency's sake. And I wouldn't use Basilique in any case, since that is usually translated. But I would refer to French churches by their French dedication, as would almost all good modern English-language guidebooks. The same goes for Italian and Spanish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Prompted by your deletion, I have searched the internet to see if there was evidence that St Dennis is officially a basilica, and didn't find any. Have you any idea at all why it is so persistently referred to as a basilica? I suppose that any church of that architecftural form might style itself "basilica" if they wanted to. When I first studied it about 45 years ago it was referred to as the Abbey of St Dennis. In expanding the article, I foolishly accepted that because it is now referred to a a basilica, it must have been elevated to that status. I should have checked. Amandajm (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I am absolutely mystified about the common designation of the church as a basilica. It's something I've been wondering about for a long time and have never been able to discover, although certainly not for want of trying. It's not even really a basilica architecturally under any definition other than the rather too general "a large and important church". A mystery! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(Obviously the word "basilica" derives from an expression in a dead language for "can of worms").
Specifically on French basilicas, after some more consideration, the title-formula "Basilica of Notre-Dame de X" seems more helpful/appropriate, for a number of reasons, than just plain "Notre-Dame de X", which apart from 2 or 3 very well-known places is not especially useful. I'd be grateful at some point for your further thoughts. HeartofaDog (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that generally. Incidentally, I've just checked the Rough Guide, Lonely Planet Guide and Eyewitness Guide, which are without doubt the three most popular guidebook series in the UK, and also the much more detailed Blue Guide, and every one of them retains the names of every Parisian church in the French. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, good to have proper sources for it. Since you don't object to the "Basilica of..[French dedication]" form above, presumably you don't think either that French church articles need to be in the form "Église de Saint-X".HeartofaDog (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what do we do? Move the article again or what? Amandajm (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's fine at its current location, which explains what its name is and where it is. I've moved the Quebec church and created a disambig page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Saw that you removed the {{main}} from the UK section - can you include a link to Military police of the United Kingdom somewhere still? ninety:one 16:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! ninety:one 16:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)