User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 14/Archive 3

Gwen Ffrangcon-Davies

The role of Etain in The Immortal Hour was significant in that it was her first professional engagement in a musical/opera and to a very large extent, this particular opera established her identity before Shakespeare ever did.

In that case this should be explained. But the bald statement that she was in a relatively obscure opera doesn't add much to the article, whereas the significance of the fact that she played Juliet opposite Gielgud is immediately apparent. -- Necrothesp 12:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of British Army ranks

I have reverted your reversion of the spelling of Major General on the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst page. According to the "Land Component Handbook (Acronymns, Abbreviations, Glossary of Terms and Symbology)", a classified document that regrettably is not publicly available, the only correct spelling is Major General. The hyphen is not in use in any rank in the British Army. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greylin (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

The fact is that the word, in British English, is spelt Major-General, as clearly listed in the OED. The Army does not have a monopoly on its usage, and the fact that somebody has ludicrously decided that American spellings look "cool" or whatever else prompted them to adopt such a spelling is not a reason for us to misspell the word. As a parallel, if some lunatic at the MOD suddenly decided that Lieutenant should be pronounced "lootenant" that would not mean that everybody in Britain, or even in the Army, would suddenly be obliged to adopt such a ridiculous pronunciation. -- Necrothesp 22:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Now we enter into the debate about whether dictionaries should be prescriptive of the rules of language, or descriptive of the way the language is actually used. A language cannot be fossilized, no matter how many rules are set in place. We know that concessions to usage are made, otherwise (for example) we would still be being told that the correct spelling of "tomorrow" was "to-morrow" as it was in Dickens' time. The Commandant of Sandhurst describes his rank as Major General and uses this spelling on his official web page. Is he wrong to do so, just because the OED appears not to have caught up with a practice that has been in

official use for the best part of thirty years? Should Wikipedia mislead its readers into thinking that the correct way to address a British Major General is to revert to a practice that has been out of date for a generation?

My suggested solution is to revert to the non-hyphenated spelling of Major General at Royal_Military_Academy_Sandhurst with a reference from there to something explaining the changing history of the spelling at Major_general#United_Kingdom. However, this is an issue that affects other British Army ranks too, such as Lance Corporal, Staff Sergeant, Lieutenant Colonel etc. --Greylin 10:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually think it's a case of dictionary English against live English. For instance, The Times style guide still says that ranks should be hyphenated (except, interestingly, Lance-Corporal) and I have seen many, many instances in the last thirty years of ranks being hyphenated in official sources (indeed, when I served up to fifteen years ago I would not have dreamed of not hyphenating these ranks - they were always hyphenated). I think this is more a case of somebody at the MoD arbitrarily deciding they prefer the ranks not to be hyphenated.

Staff Sergeant, incidentally, has not been hyphenated for so long that I don't think anyone would do so any more. That's a relic of a time when all word combinations were hyphenated (e.g. street names, such as "Regent-street", which can still be seen on some old signs). However, there is a good reason to hyphenate ranks such as Major-General - a senior rank is being modified by a junior rank, which means it makes perfect sense in English for them to be hyphenated. You will notice that most British and Canadian writers on military subjects on Wikipedia prefer to use the hyphenated versions of these ranks, which says something about the way language is actually used, I think. Trying to change these things unilaterally will meet resistance.

As for web pages, I don't take them seriously as far as spelling and grammar are concerned. Webmasters' spelling and grammar are frequently atrocious. And I have seen some appalling errors of English and fact on MoD websites. -- Necrothesp 12:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You write:

(indeed, when I served up to fifteen years ago I would not have dreamed of not hyphenating these ranks - they were always hyphenated). I think this is more a case of somebody at the MoD arbitrarily deciding they prefer the ranks not to be hyphenated.

With respect, you were wrong then and you are wrong now. I have in front of me JSP 101 (the official service writing manual) dated November 1978 - with which you should have been familiar if you served up to fifteen years ago - and Major General is clearly listed in it without a hyphen, as are all similar "compound" ranks. The decision to drop the hyphen has now been in force long enough for its implementation not to be "arbitrary".

Regardless of your personal preferences, or those of The Times or of Canadian, British or any other writers or dictionaries, the situation now is that Royal_Military_Academy_Sandhurst is displaying incorrectly the rank of a serving officer, Major General Pearson. He and others could reasonably find this discourteous. This type of inaccuracy does Wikipedia's credibility no favours. I am sorry you continue to insist that you know better - especially since you have now demonstrated that you did not know better when you were actually serving yourself.--Greylin 20:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, if Major-General Pearson finds correct English spelling discourteous (and I frankly doubt that he would) then I despair of the British Army. No doubt soon we will in fact see "lootenant" as the official pronunciation. Incidentally, do the manuals you quote actually specifically say that the hyphen is not to be used or do they just not use it? If the latter I would reiterate my point that they were doubtless written by a civil servant without a command of correct English, education being sadly lacking even amongst government officials in the modern day and age. You seem to set very high store by service manuals, yet I'm sure you would not suddenly start misspelling other words just because they did so. Would you start writing "color" instead of "colour" just because somebody at the MoD was ignorant enough to do so? I doubt it. The English language is not changed, even within the Army, just because the MoD says it is. "Major-General" may be an army rank, but it is still part of the English language and cannot be changed just because a manual starts using a variant. And, as I have said, I am not the only editor who thinks this should be the case - many editors have added hyphens to British ranks in the past.

Incidentally, it is gratifying that the RN and RAF at least still understand proper English usage. Maybe the Army should take a leaf out of their book and not try so hard to be All-American! -- Necrothesp 16:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the RN and RAF web pages you refer to, it's as you say:

"As for web pages, I don't take them seriously as far as spelling and grammar are concerned. Webmasters' spelling and grammar are frequently atrocious. And I have seen some appalling errors of English and fact on MoD websites."

--Greylin 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll now explain what exactly you're getting at! Are you saying that your wonderguide (that nobody else can see) also says their ranks shouldn't have hyphens? -- Necrothesp 21:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am ex-Army and the document JSP 101 deals with staff issues such as correct abbreviations and spelling. Ranks are not hyphenated and if the person above who claims that he hypentaed ranks had been my clerk he would have reverted to piss-mattress storeman before the day was out (interestingly, an example of a hypentaed military role). The ranks are in the Army not The Times or even at Wikipedia so their various style manuals are irrelevant. --MJB 13:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the ranks are in the English language, upon which the Army does not have a monopoly! The Army can misspell ranks and show its ignorance if it so chooses, but the fact remains that in British English these words are hyphenated. -- Necrothesp 13:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion to Commandant

I have reverted your edit you made to Commandant today. Although those definitions are relevant, they belong in wiktionary, not on a disambiguation page (per WP:DAB). If you have questions about why I did what I did, don't hesitate to ask. Take care! - grubber 01:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree they don't belong on a disambiguation page. But they do deserve an article. Probably Commandant itself should be an article, with a link to a disambiguation page. The problem is that the meanings that are currently listed are actually the more uncommon ones. -- Necrothesp 10:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be one solution. If you're just thinking of a list of definitions, then wiktionary is the better place for that. If what you are thinking is an article itself, I think that's a great solution -- if there's enough to make an article out of. - grubber 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There's actually more than enough to make an article compared to many of the articles we already have. I'm personally not a fan of the "move everything to Wiktionary" school of thought, which is why I readded the other bits in the first place. Almost every noun can have a decent article made out of it. The line between a simple definition and an informative article is a very fine, blurry and subjective one. -- Necrothesp 00:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tough line to figure out where it's a dict def or if it's a stub that could be worked into an article... - grubber 02:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Beary AFD Vote

The article on Orange County, Florida Sheriff Kevin Beary, which you have previously edited has been nominated for deletion. Please feel free to share your thoughts on this matter. --TommyBoy 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

TAFMIS Block?

Apparently you've blocked a TAFMIS IP (namely 82.109.66.146) from editing Wikipedia. Could you expand a little on why this happened? If my customers have been misusing TAFMIS terminals in my IT Suite, I'd like to know, so I can make the appropriate enquiries and report the offenders for abusing our services. Kind regards, C Jessup (IT Administrator). CitrusC 12:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No matter, I found out why via the Special:Contributions page for the IP in question. If you have any problems from anyone using that IP address - personal insults (amusingly mispelled) or otherwise - please drop me a message at my talk page with the offence and when it occurred, and I'll see if I can link them to current users in the Suite and take appropriate action. Kind regards, C Jessup (IT Administrator). CitrusC 13:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks. I don't like blocking anonymous IPs for any length of time, but I'm not tolerating that sort of vandalism. I shall unblock the IP now. Regards. -- Necrothesp 15:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  - - [In reference to the comment left on my talk page] I've checked who was on at the time and it looks like it may have been from someone else on the TAFMIS IP, as there wasn't anyone in the center at that time. I think the best bet may be to perma-block the IP so users have to create accounts (which can then be blocked if misused) so they don't vandalise "for a laugh". It's a shame, but clearly they can't be trusted with access to Wikipedia. CitrusC 12:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Okay. Thanks. -- Necrothesp 14:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hi Necrothesp. I remember seeing your contributions on some fire/emergency/military articles in the past. I was wondering if you could have a look at Ministry of Defence Fire Services. Notwithstanding that this article needs Wikifying, I can't find any source for this organisation at all. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but it certainly wasn't created as a result of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 - its scope extends to England and Wales only. I'm sure this is the sort of article you might be interested in or familiar with. Regards. Escaper7 22:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've drawn a blank on reliable sources on the internet. There seems to be a lot of confusion over exactly who does what and what they're called. But as you say, the 2004 Act appears to have nothing to do with any of it. -- Necrothesp 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

LFB

My apologies - the MFB became the LFB in 1904 so you're right about Firebrace. I was thinking NFS. I started that list a while back, and hope to fill it out more comprehensively, and also hope that some other eds will help with it. BTW any thoughts on the above re MoDFS? Regards Escaper7 22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Honorific Prefixes

Just a heads up, this thread section has just been started on Honorific Prefixes, and has been prompted by a coalition from this talk. Don't know if it's a major thing but I thought you should be aware of where it has come from, don't know if it's important, relevant or they're trying to promote something controversial, just something I came across. Ben W Bell talk 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

'RN Officer' vs 'Admiral'

Thanks for your note. All Admirals are RN officers, and as Admirals they will have passed through the entire panoply of ranks from S/Lt (or Midshipman) onwards. It is only late in their careers that they will have attained this senior rank. As a result, after c.30 years of service, it seems to be mistaken to characterise them by only one rank of the many that they have held. They have had a long career, and in their ideal state Bio articles will reflect this, not merely their final few years in the Service. At the same time, there is no harm in preparing for the future and ensuring disambiguation is explicit—is someone is described as a officer, it makes sense to note in what service they had this role, be it the police, army, RN, RAF, whether in the UK, US, or elsewhere.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 15:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This could apply to absolutely anyone who has a disambiguation qualifier. By the same token, these people weren't naval officers all their lives either - but they are generally known for their actions as admirals. Also note that there is no need to add national qualifiers (e.g. "Royal" Navy or, as I notice you've also done, "British" army) unless needed to disambiguate between people with the same name who were officers in different countries. The basic rule is that disambiguation is only necessary to distinguish one person from another - the fact they weren't an admiral all their lives is irrelevant to the disambiguator; it's not a "characterisation" (if it were then we'd add it to every biographical article) but simply a means of distinguishing one person from another. -- Necrothesp 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that disambiguation is not intended to be a universal characterisation, but the very fact that disambiguation is required implies that a degree of characterisation is necessary. This is certainly not a case of trying to shoe-horn in a potted biography in the article title!

Re your point about 'national qualifiers'; they aren't that really, they are the name of the service in question. The RN is just that, the RN. The RAF is just that, the RAF. It's not a question of adding nationalities to the disambiguation. Merely describing someone as an 'officer', or, even worse, 'soldier' or 'sailor' invalidates the whole point of the disambiguation. Yes, it differentiates from other bio subjects with the same name, but it does not remove ambiguity—the other vital aspect of disambiguation.

Xdamr^talk 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes it does remove ambiguity. If we have two John Smiths, one described as "John Smith (admiral)" and one as "John Smith (general)" then that has removed ambiguity and done exactly what disambiguation is designed to do - there's no ambiguity there at all (unless the RN and USN both have an Admiral John Smith, but then again, it's perfectly possible that the RN could have two Admiral John Smiths, in which case you've still got ambiguity even if you use "John Smith (Royal Navy officer)"). I also notice you have used "British army officer" not "British Army officer", which would be the correct disambiguator if you were adding the actual names of the services!

These disagreements are exactly the reason why I prefer to use full names (where possible) instead of subjective parenthetical qualifiers as disambiguators. -- Necrothesp 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as 'British army' vs 'British Army' goes, this is just my standard practice. I'm not sure that it is usual to capitalise the 'A'—this is just a personal bias, which doubtless originated somewhere long forgotten.

Your point re full names is well made—surely that is the best disambiguation of all? Perhaps it is worth revisiting some of these articles and seeing if something can be done along these lines?

Xdamr^talk 20:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that it is usual practice to capitalise Army - it's the proper name of the organisation, just as Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are proper names. I shall make an attempt to move articles where disambiguation is necessary to full names where possible. -- Necrothesp 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Isle of Man

Hello. It was nothing personal from my side. I just think it is quite weird to see Man in company of Japan or Australia in "xy by country" category :). - Darwinek 11:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no more than the Vatican City, San Marino or Monaco! -- Necrothesp 11:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Westminster Dragoons officers' capbadge

Hi. Of my statement "[The officers who founded the Westminster Dragoons] brought with them the Royals' then-current capbadge, which was later adopted by the General Staff" you wrote: "this is simply not true - the capbadge is nothing like those worn by colonels, brigadiers or generals; sounds like a myth".

I have added to the Westminster Dragoons article an image of the WD officers' capbadge as used until 2006, when all five squadrons of the Royal Yeomanry adopted a new common capbadge. As you will see if you take a look at it, the WD officers' former capbadge was identical to the one used by colonels and brigadiers. I have also added an image of the WDs during a pause in their 2003 deployment to Iraq: if you expand the thumbnail and look closely at the berets of the officers in the foregrond, you will see that they are wearing that capbadge.

As to whether it is a myth or not: that is the explanation given in A History of the Westminster Dragoons 1901-1967 by Captain CCP Lawson & Captain N. Huw-Williams and is also common currency among serving soldiers and officers of the squadron.

I'll give you that looks like the Colonels' and Brigadiers' cap badge, but the badge shown at the time did not, hence my deletion of the statement. It was also inaccurate as describing it as the badge of the "General Staff" - it's a badge specific to Colonels and Brigadiers. Thanks for the clarification. I'm still doubtful about the veracity of the story, however. I'd be surprised if anyone saluted based on a cap badge - the rank insignia is far more obvious. -- Necrothesp 10:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification of terminology: "General Staff" was too broad. Regarding veracity: I am an officer in the Westminster Dragoons. It has happened to me, often.

There must be a lot of idiots around then. When I was a TA officer I wouldn't have dreamed of saluting anyone until I'd seen his rank badges. The cap badge would have been the last thing I noticed. -- Necrothesp 13:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL. It can happen to non-idiots if the rank slide is worn in the middle of the chest only and is obscured. Wearing GoreTex jackets is especially good fun in this regard. But you might be right about the number of idiots about. ;-)

Ali Dizaei

You have reverted a fact tag on Ali Dizaei, stating "del fact tag; this is referenced in the footnotes below - there is no need to footnote every single statement)". I can see no reference in the footnotes to the supposed facts. At least one of the supposed facts is libelous. Would you be so good as to point me at the footnote which supports the fact, or else revert your reversion. Note that there is no footnote for the paragraph in question; I'm a little puzzled as to how other footnotes are taken to cover this paragraph. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I see that you have also changed the "further reading" heading into a "reference" heading. As the article was written before the book was published, would you be so good as to explain how the book can be a reference for the article? "Further reading" is, AFAIK, a supported article heading and seemed appropriate to me. Please explain why a change to "references" was a better choice of heading. --Tagishsimon (talk)

See this article from the BBC which refers to his self-confessed open marriage. Since this link appears in the external links section as general reference for the whole article it is unnecessary to footnote it - footnoting every single fact separately is neither necessary nor particularly useful (excessive footnotes do not improve the readability of an article). Since the BBC is a reputable source and says that Dizaei's open marriage was "self-confessed" it is not "a supposed fact" and hardly libellous. I should have written "link" instead of "footnote" in the edit summary when I removed the fact tag, but the fact remains that everything I wrote in the article is fully referenced from a reliable source.

"References" on Wikipedia are usually taken to be the written equivalent of "External links" - use of the term does not imply that the book was used to write the article and it is the usual header for such material. "Further reading" is not commonly used in my experience and I routinely change variations to "References" (by far the commonest term) for the sake of consistency. -- Necrothesp 19:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to the reference to the "open marriage" claim. I will remove it from external links and add it to the references section. On the basis of the logic expressed below - if you have no objection - I will revert the book to "further reading".

I do not agree with you that there is equivalence between "references", "external links" and "further reading".

"Wikipedia:Attribution, which is policy, mandates the provision of sources. Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", according to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Clearly the open marriage statement is a statement likely to be challenged. One would expect it to be sourced specifically.

Nothing in "How to cite sources" in Wikipedia:Citing sources suggests that "external links" is an appropriate place to cite sources, or, to put it another way, the external link should not be mistaken for a reference.

One would naturally expect that "references" list those sources used to build the article. Specifying as a reference a document that has not been used in the building of the article is IMO foolhardy and misleading.

Finally you might wish to consult Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), where "Further reading" is clearly noted as a conventional heading. If it is your practice to amend this to "references" then I think you are acting in error. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Frankly, I did not consider that the statement would be challenged; as someone who focuses on creating articles I do not tend to take into consideration the views of people whose main purpose for being here is to specifically look for things to challenge (although I acknowledge it is sadly all too common on Wikipedia today). Since Dizaei is apparently happy to talk about his marriage in these terms I don't think it's particularly subversive to write it.

You may not agree that there is equivalence in the three headings; I happen to disagree with you. I do not personally believe that website links should be listed under "References" and it is extremely rare to see them so listed. You appear to be taking one specific meaning of the word "reference" and excluding others, which include generic sources of information. To me it is perfectly sensible to list such sources of information under "References" (e.g. as in the "reference section" of a library). -- Necrothesp 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You put the cart before the horse by arguing "Since Dizaei is apparently happy to talk about...". Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Material that is.2C or is likely to be.2C challenged advises you to "Try to imagine whether or not people might doubt what you wrote, or need more information about it." In the Dizaei context - a person against whom a heap of false allegation were made - one might anticipate that an allegation of open marriage would be exactly the sort of material likely to be challenged, on the basis that absent the citation, it may as easily be parsed as just one more smear. We cannot expect the reader to know the Dizaei backstory prior to reading the article. We might as well give up if we're making such presumptions. And FWIW, we do not cite because of an increase in challenges (I'm not aware that there has been an increase) but for the reasons set out at the top of Wikipedia:Citing sources

"You appear to be taking one specific meaning of the word "reference" and excluding others, which include generic sources of information.". Yes. For the reasonable reason that the heading "references" in the context of an article is conventionally the domicile of a list of cited sources. Not a reference library. Indeed, "external links" and "further reading" would seem most appropriate as places for pointers to further information that does not form part of the reference set from which the article was created.

I will revert your changes. And I urge you to reconsider your practices in line with the wikipedia policy I've cited. "I routinely change variations to "References" (by far the commonest term) for the sake of consistency. " is clearly not supported. --Tagishsimon (talk)

As I have said, I don't agree with you. You can quote as many guidelines as you like, but I still won't agree with you. I write articles in the way that makes most sense to me - we all write our articles in different ways and, as you should know, there is no one true way to do so. I urge you to read WP:IAR. However, I'm far more interested in adding to the encyclopaedia than in arguing petty points of style, so feel free to put things where you like. -- Necrothesp 09:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot have it both ways. If you are "far more interested in adding to the encyclopaedia than in arguing petty points of style" then I have to question why you were ineptly fiddling around in the Dazaei article. What you really mean is that you don't give a shit about the sort of consensus embodied in wikipedia policy, and are unprepared to justify your actions beyond "I did it because I felt like doing it". I guess that's fine, if a little intellectually bankrupt. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Hmm, interesting comment. So I was "ineptly fiddling around" in an article I created and almost entirely wrote! I suggest you pause to consider the fact that the article wouldn't exist at all if I hadn't created it and stop lecturing experienced editors on Wikipedia policy of which they are fully aware and falsely accusing fellow editors of ineptness. You merely have an opinion which others are not required to share. I certainly take issue with your changing "Footnotes" to "References" - the Footnotes header is fully supported in one of the policies you have just quoted! -- Necrothesp 14:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Footnotes header is NOT fully supported in Wikipedia:Citing sources. Rather, that policy says "Place the

tag in a "Notes" or "References" section near the end of the article." But now I see where the problem is coming from: you think you own the article merely because you started it. Even though you know wikipedia does not work that way. And you're prepared to disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. You take issue /now/ when a couple of answers ago, this was all some "petty formatting issue". Given the inconsistency and arbitrariness of your arguments, there seems little point in continuing this debate. I hope that you will one day acknowledge that policy arrived at by consent should normally be followed, but I don't bank on it. --Tagishsimon (talk)

To quote from the page:

It may be useful to refer to explanatory notes in addition to citations. The citation technique named Footnotes works for both purposes. These notes may be referred to as endnotes, footnotes, or just notes.

Recommended section names to use for non-citation footnotes in Wikipedia:

==Notes== or ==Footnotes==

==Notes and references== section: Used if there is no separate section with general references, and if all sources of the general content of the article are covered by the footnotes, but see the note about this below.

[edit] Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes"

It can be helpful when footnotes are used that a separate "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.

Appears to support it as far as I can see! Maybe you should read the whole page and not just the bits you want to.

No, I do not believe I own the article. I do, however, think it a little rich when I write most of it, you change something, I change it back, and you accuse me of inept fiddling. If you got off your high horse and thought for a bit you would realise that. Sadly, I don't bank on it! -- Necrothesp 15:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent reversion to my user page

82.109.66.146 Canford School

Hi, I noticed you removed the more sources tag. I would like to inform you why it was placed there. I placed it because I feel that the article does not contain at present, enough sources to justify its notability in regards to WP:N. Following debates at Wikipedia:Schools and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools I believe that the article needs more than just two websites (one being the schools own website) to justify the article. I am however not a deletionist and prefer that an article be improved. I used to attended classes at Canford School and know it well, it was my intention that by placing the tag, users visiting the page would be inclined to add further sources to improve its notability as well as expand the article in general. As an admin, I would have hoped that this was obvious, but as the article originates from you I understand your instinctiveness to remove the tag. I have replaced it however, in the effort that people will expand the article with more sources and references.

I would like to add however, if no sources can be found I will put the school article up for afd and this idea is not "utterly ludicrous". An example of this is City of Portsmouth Boys' School which a few months ago had no references. It was nominated for Afd and in effort to save it, 8 references were found, as well as 4 websites. The article is now significantly improved. This is one of the very beneficial parts of adding both a sources tag and nominating for afd. I would hope that same will happen to the Canford School article and that perhaps you would like to start with adding more references. Regards, LordHarris 23:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just read your arguments about secondary schools and completely agree with you. I want to emphasise again that I want this article to be improved and that adding a source tag and nominating for afd are 2 ways to do just that! LordHarris 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I fear you misunderstand the point and process of AfD. It is not intended that AfD be used as a way to spur people to add sources. Its only use is to get things deleted. To use it any other way is an abuse of AfD and could come under the definition of making a point. Lack of sources is never a reason for deletion as long as the article can be sourced using reliable sources (as is clearly explained in WP:ATT). This article is actually sourced, which makes it even less a candidate for AfD. Please do not nominate or threaten to nominate an article for AfD in the future unless you really do want it deleted and have good reason for wanting it deleted (and I repeat, having "only" two sources is not grounds for deletion). I have no problem with the source tag per se, but I certainly do have a problem with your threat to nominate for deletion, which has no grounds whatsoever. Please read the deletion policy - since the existence of the school can clearly be verified and since I have never seen anyone except a fanatical deletionist seriously dispute in an AfD that British public schools are inherently notable (since in most people's opinion such a claim would be pretty unsupportable given the age, size, status and notable alumni of most public schools) it should not be nominated for deletion. -- Necrothesp 00:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well thanks for explaining that to me. If thats how you feel btw re: schools, then drop along to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools. In most cases there are a lot of articles, with several sources often up for deletion. LordHarris 06:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I used to participate on AfDs on schools a lot, but got fed up with the obsessive deletionists voting to delete almost every school and proudly proclaiming they were trying to clean up Wikipedia by deleting as much as possible (oddly, they were usually people who created virtually nothing), which is why I rarely visit AfD these days. -- Necrothesp 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Railroad police

William White

My edits to your User:Necrothesp/Honours Lists

DEFAULTSORT

Aircraftman

Advice and Help

Sir Henry Dalton

Law enforcement

Hey, Necrothesp. After seeing your input on so many police-related talk pages, I figured you'd be the one to ask. I know the term "Law enforcement agency" is used in the UK, but I was wondering if it's completely interchangeable with "police force" to the same extent it is in North America. Part of the reason I'm asking is because I'd like to change some article and category titles in Category:Police forces of the United Kingdom to standardize them if it's appropriate. I've also been thinking that the police article might become more manageable if the information on police agencies, organization and operations, were moved to Law enforcement agency. The source of my doubt is that I noticed from a search through old American journal articles on JSTOR that "law enforcement" before the early 1930s was more likely a reference to what the courts were doing than the police in the US context, which got me thinking there might be some regional differences in how the term translated historically.

On another note: after you corrected me on Chief Constable being specific to British policing, I did some looking around other Canadian police departments, and it appears the police force where I live, Vancouver, is the only Canadian city with a Chief Constable rather than Chief of Police. Cheers, bobanny 08:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. We don't usually use the term "law enforcement" in the UK at all. Most people probably wouldn't really know what it meant. We usually just say "the police". So "police forces" would be the correct term to use. In any case, I don't think it's true that "police force" is interchangeable with "law enforcement agency" in North America. It may generally be in Canada, but in the United States there are many law enforcement agencies (FBI, DEA, ATF, and many others) which do not classify themselves as police. All police forces are LEAs, but the reverse is not true by a long way. -- Necrothesp 13:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, that's exactly what I was trying to put my finger on. I was thinking in terms of city police. It makes sense that the term "law enforcement" in its current connotation came about in the US with the rise of the FBI in the 1930s. Because the constitutional locus of police power there is at the state and local level, police reformers were looking for a way around this constraint in the New Deal era. With the interstate highway system, proliferation of the automobile, etc, the demand for public police became increasingly national, and they wanted a way to get the benefits of the British system. Its the self-non-identification as "police" that's the Americanism here, since what those other agencies do is considered "police work" elsewhere.

As for the use of the term "law enforcement" as a synonym for police in Canada, I'd say it's more of a professional or academic term; common usage outside the LE milieu is invariably "police." I did a search on google.co.uk for "law enforcement agency," and it seems to be similar in that respect: quite a few hits, but geared to more specialized or academic audiences, particularly where it's necessary to include more than police forces (for example, SOCA spells out what's included in LEA, such as Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs Commissioners).

I won't go mucking about with UK category or article titles, but it still seems appropriate to eventually develop Law enforcement agency to take some of the burden off the police article. (A separate "History of the MET" article would also be a useful addition in this respect). Okay, thanks, and sorry for the rambling thinking-out-loud response. bobanny 20:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the use of "law enforcement" in the UK is largely an academic and official term, but not usually even a professional one (not in the ordinary police at any rate). I use it in writing because I have a general knowledge of the field outside the UK, but I would be surprised if many of my police colleagues would ever use it (and I've never heard any of them doing so). We're police or bobbies, not law enforcement. -- Necrothesp 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, okay. I'll solicit input from the wikiproject LE folks before doing anything drastic. LEA could be a redirect to "Police force," which could explain the differences, or maybe there's a suitable term that's more universal. In any case, like a lot of things, I may not get to this for a while. bobanny 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll options on Fred Dibnah's birthplace

Fonds article now has citations

RAF uniform

Greetings (again). I am interested in writing some content on RAF uniforms and in particular the now defunct stand-up collar uniform as seen here:

File:AVM Sir Oliver Swann.jpg

My guess is that this was the RAF's full dress and I think that it was not retained after WW2. Again, guessing, I imagine with that wartime austerity it was suspended and that like some other ceremonial aspects, it was never re-introduced. In order to write content I need some sources. Can you help by pointing me in the right direction? Many thanks. Greenshed 18:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It was indeed the RAF's full dress, but was always rarely seen. Unlike Army full dress, I don't think it was ever really used by anyone except very senior officers and bandsmen (who still wear it in actual fact - see the photos here). RAF airmen, incidentally, originally wore a standing collar service uniform similar to that of the Army (complete with puttees), but this was phased out in the 1930s and since then everyone has worn the open-necked tunic. I'm afraid I can't find any sources for full dress though. -- Necrothesp 09:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the confirmation and other assistance. Incidentially, some RAF junior officers also posessed full dress (see http://lafayette.150m.com/pol131291.html for an example). Greenshed 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. I wonder if it was compulsory, optional or whether he just hired it for the photo! -- Necrothesp 12:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A good question. If you take a look at http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/9645FADA_EE31_9299_8E899FC7FA734D14.pdf and go to page 2-37, you'll see that there is still a tropical stand-up collar dress (perhaps the warn-weather version of the full dress picured above) although I've never seen anyone wearing it. Greenshed 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the blurb, only compulsory for officers in certain posts (mainly attachés serving in hot countries, I should imagine). Strange that's survived and the temperate full dress hasn't. Incidentally, I would think that the latter is covered by Nos.9, 10 and 11 dress, which aren't described and are apparently for musicians only. -- Necrothesp 15:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started the Royal Air Force uniform article. Your contributions would be welcome. Cheers. Greenshed 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)