User talk:DBD/Archive 17

August – November 2011

Nedi Rivera

Hello, I see that you moved the article of Bavi Edna Rivera to "Nedi" Rivera. I want you to know that "Nedi" is not Bavi Edna Rivera's name nor is it a common name. It is her nickname.**** Please move the article back to Bavi Edna Rivera which is the subjects real name. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• References

Hullo Tony. I've been using Google to determine what each bishop's WP:COMMONNAME would be. In Bishop Rivera's case, I found:

• "Nedi+Rivera"+bishop "Nedi Rivera" bishop gives ~4,140 results
• "Bavi Edna Rivera" gives ~1,200 results
• "Bavi+Rivera"+bishop "Bavi Rivera" bishop gives ~664 results
• "Edna Rivera" bishop... gives ~762 results (some of which, despite my best efforts, appear to be part of the phrase "Bavi Edna Rivera"!)

Now, what that tells me is that it is more common by far for Bishop Rivera to be referred to as Nedi Rivera, therefore the article belongs there (with Bavi Edna Rivera, Bavi Rivera and Edna Rivera all redirecting there). DBD 07:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I do not agree with you. What this should tell you is that just because, as an example, Abraham Lincoln was well known by the nicknames "Abe" and "Honest Abe", we do not change his article's title to a title using that person's "nickname" with the excuse that said nickname was popular. "Nedi" is Bavi Edna Rivera's nickname and she is referred to as such by her friends and those close to her. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And, it seems abundantly clear, the media! DBD 19:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Name simplification

I see that you have been removing middle names/initials from a number of Episcopalian bishops on the grounds that this is WP:COMMONNAME. Unfortuntely, you don't seem to be checking Google or Google Books. If you did (Google Books is more reliable since Google shows so many Wikipedia related hits) then you would see that Frederick Joseph Kinsman, Jeffrey N. Steenson and Calvin O. Schofield, Jr. are all better known with middle initial/name. I think it likely that this is the case with a number of other names you have changed. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, McFerran. Cheers for letting me know so politely. How do you suggest I adapt? I have so far been going through every bishop article systematically and using Google: I query "John Smith" "bishop of wherever" -"John Paul Smith", "John P Smith" "bishop of wherever" -"John Paul Smith" and "Paul Smith" "bishop of wherever" -"John Paul Smith" to establish which of his/her forenames is his/her given name. Should I just leave the Americans with their cherished initials? DBD 10:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with moving an article if it's currently not the common name. But you seem to be under the impression that there is something generally wrong with middle initials. I assume that you wouldn't try to move John F. Kennedy or F. Scott Fitzgerald. There are lots of other people who are not generally known as firstname lastname (and that is especially so with Americans). If you do not have some particular expertise about these individuals then I'm not sure why you are moving their articles. It is incorrect to presume that a middle initial is wrong. Moving articles to names never (or rarely) used for these individuals is damaging to Wikipedia's reliability. Noel S McFerran (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth Mackenzie (twice)

Maybe we will end up with Kenneth Mackenzie (Bishop of Brechin) and Kenneth Mackenzie (Bishop of Argyll). You feel they must have known each other. I used to work in a school with three Lennie Smith's who were known by the staff and pupils alike as Big Lennie, Little Lennie and Young Lennie. All the best Bashereyre (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

William Warham (Archdeacon)

I see that you have moved this article to William Warham (priest). Unfortunately, the article states that he was not a priest. His uncle William Warham (Archbishop) was a priest and there is a need to differentiate them: Archbishop and Archdeacon does that very satisfactorily and enphasises the most significant element of their careers, by which they are known today. The use of job titles helps to disambiguate people with the same name who might have the same ecclesiastical rank --- not uncommon when jobs ran in families. I think that WW should be reverted back to what he was. DavidShaw (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message about this. The problem here (for me) is that Archdeacon is not a rank (like deacon, priest, bishop). It is the title of an important administrative officer. The Archdeacon of Canterbury in the late Middle Ages was the Archbishop's senior administrative officer with very wide powers and capable of playing a role on the national political scene. On the whole I'm sympathedtic to Wikipedia's naming rules tening to simplicity but I don't agree about reducing Deans and Archdeacons (for example) to simple 'priest'. DavidShaw (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for changing him back -- I see that you have now made him WW (Archdeacon of Canterbury). If this fits WP policy about names, it sounds a good solution. DavidShaw (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Table headings

On my watchlist I've noticed you've edited the headings for Archbishop of York and Archbishop of Wales. Ages ago I started bishop/archbishop table headings with the orangish colour at top to match the Template:S-rel succession boxes. The template succession box colour has since been removed, which I had thought was a bit gaudy and was glad to see it go. Recently I've started using the yellow/gold colour for newer bishop lists I've created or edited - see: Diocese of Beverley or Bishop of Leeds. The reason was to match the colour with the Template:Infobox diocese. What are your thoughts on having a standard colour for the headings for bp/abp lists? Are you happy with the orangish colour or the yellow/gold colour? Or perhaps another colour? I'm wondering whether there could be some sort purple colour used for the headings, since purple is associated with bishops and is used for the default colour in Template:Infobox Christian leader, and also used with Template:Infobox Bishopric and Template:Infobox Archbishopric. Scrivener-uki (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I had wondered why that orange was chosen. I've nothing against it, but something more fitting may be appropriate. I did think maybe CofE purple (#B395D0) since I was editing Anglican bishops first:

Bishops of Nonsuch
No.	Incumbent	From	Until	Notes.

But then I thought that that's rather limited – in fact limited to CofE rather than Anglican. So, how about claret (#7F1734 "bishop purple")? Is that pretty universal?

Bishops of Nonsuch
No.	Incumbent	From	Until	Notes.

And what say you of my tweaks to the tables' coding? DBD 19:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the first one, although the second looks fine as well. I'm wondering what to be done with the background colour for each Incumbent entry. At the moment the tables have a very, very light yellow colour. Maybe the background colour could removed altogether and would look like this:

Bishops of Nonsuch
No.	Incumbent	From	Until	Notes.
1	Name and surname	????	????	Notes here

Also, for some bp/abp tables I've not included the "No." column and put the from/until columns first. The reason is I can't work out from the 1st bp to the current one. The next Bishop of Lincoln will the 72nd one. But you try and work out from the 1st to the 72nd and you'll find out the numbers don't work out. The same with the Bishop of Norwich table, the numbers don't work out. So with the new heading colours would look like this:

Bishops of Nonsuch
From	Until	Incumbent	Notes
????	????	Name and surname	Notes here

In fact I don't think the number column isn't really needed. It conjectural anyway how they are numbered. The List of Archbishops of Canterbury table looks clumsy with the archbishops numbered and next the archbishops-elect with "–". I actually introduced the number column and have realised shouldn't have. Scrivener-uki (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had similar problems with numbering certain bishops (e.g. the assistant bishop of Perth, which aren't a strict 1-to-1 succession). In those cases, I've omit the number column and put the name first (as I assumed that was the most important data). I would be for omitting numbering in all cases. The more I think on it the more I think claret is more appropriate. I had quite forgotten that rows were coloured – could we alternate white/purple?

Bishops of Nonsuch
Incumbent	From	Until	Notes.
John Smith (1841–1916)	1901	1910	Translated from Someplace.
David Williams (1860–1936)	1910	1936	Also called Dafydd Williams; died in office.
Vacant	1936		Interregnum due to Bishop Williams' sudden death in office.
Jane Jones (1888–1969)	1936	1952	Elected Primate of The Land in 1950; translated to Otherplace.

✝DBD 21:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming around to the claret version, but I'm not sure whether the colour is too dark. At present a number of the lists have ref(s) after "bp/abp of Somewhere". With the claret heading the ref number(s) don't show up in white but remain in blue which is extremely difficult to see. Perhaps the ref(s) could be moved from the header to after "Notes", or maybe a source(s) row added at bottom. I do like the idea with alternate white/purple rows. You've added the Incumbents birth/death years in brackets, which I feel is too much information and confuses with the From/Until years. I really do prefer the From/Until columns to come first, followed by the Incumbent and Notes columns. This is an example how the tables would look like:

Bishops of Nonsuch
From	Until	Incumbent	Notes.
1901	1910	John Smith	Translated from Someplace.
Source(s): [1], [2], [3]

All having said, perhaps we should keep things simpler like the Bishop of Durham or Dean of York list. Scrivener-uki (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That all seems well enough. Perhaps we could include birth & death years for red-linked bishops? DBD 16:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the birth & deaths in brackets. That information could be placed in the Notes column. Scrivener-uki (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought that moments after sending that last reply. Cool. I'm happy with the place we're at. You? DBD 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the last version I suggested. It seems we are in agreement. Scrivener-uki (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What say you? (I tweaked the headers row colour to be a little lighter.) DBD 17:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the lighter sub-header row colour looks better. Scrivener-uki (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good (although I wasn't actually asked what I thought beforehand...) but can I ask that you not introduce the quotation marks into named references when they aren't there before? Like: <ref name="Foo"/>. They aren't needed and on articles I'm one of the main contributors too, I find them very annoying to work with. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that (not inviting consultation). And sure, I'll not insert the "s in future. DBD 15:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No great worries on my end, as I've got both you and S-uk's pages watchlisted, but some other folks might get bent out of shape with such a major change in colors taking part on user pages rather than the article talk pages. And thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DBD. You have new messages at Scrivener-uki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Spacing...

See this diff - the spacing really makes it a lot easier to edit the article and makes no difference on the output. The reference column formatting is there to allow for less scrolling for folks looking at the references - and is set up to be adjustable based on different monitor widths. Please don't make my job of maintaining articles harder by removing all the line spaces between sections and removing the reference formatting. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the spacing – I'll remember to make sure that doesn't happen again. However, I have been removing the reference column width for good reason – on several of these medieval English bishop articles, the /* References */ section is broken such that the second column appear at the very edge of the page, overlapping the infobox. I found that removing the /* Notes */ column width (usually 40em) solves this issue. Is there a better solution I can use? DBD 09:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd bring the issue up at the reflist template page, as I do not have that issue on either my Mac or my PC, with IE, Safari or FireFox. So my guess is it's a browser issue, rather than an issue with the code itself. Perhaps try a <br/> between the sections?

Cambridge meetup 8 October

You might not be that far away: m:Meetup/Cambridge/12. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Archdeacons

The source shown as CCEd is Clergy of the Church of England database at http://www.theclergydatabase.org.uk/ It does not yet have any archdeacons of Cornwall after 1641 but I hope to add those.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Annabel's

Do you have any evidence that the Duchess of Cornwall, as opposed to the young Camilla Parker-Bowles, is a visitor to Annabel's? Your change here, as I don't believe Her Grace has been there in some years, is thus anachronistic and misleading. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Archdeacons of Ely template

DBD, thank you for expanding this. Sorry my contributions have been curtailed recently by a combination of friends and family being ill, and my elderly computer unable to open wikipedia in edit mode. Bashereyre (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Neil Blair (agent)

The article Neil Blair (agent) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry DBD

I thought I had clicked John Beer priest but it must have been a residue from the last batch: am starting on the Huntingdon Archdeacons next will follow any common name policies you adjust Bashereyre (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Enjoyed your user boxes

I had intended to say Wikipedia sometimes gets it wrong: for quite a while the former Archbishop of Canterbury was on the site as Cosmo Lang, which no-one else has ever called him, but common sense has prevailed and I was redirected to CGL. My father and I (Uber anoraks both) have started a collection of people who are known by three names ie Alfred Lord Tennyson, John Maynard Keynes etc)* You must be a fair bit younger than me, because although not a fan of Dr Who the first episode I can recall is Patrick Troughton metamorphising into Jon Pertwee. Bashereyre (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC) PS What about one for people recognisable from one name Topol, Lemmy, Lulu etc?

Here's another one

Alexander Graham Bell
Off to a funeral now and two more imminent, nice to talk about something a bit lighter inbetween Bashereyre (talk) 08:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What is "rm sps"?

Thanks for your note. I was referring WP:SPS - self-published sources. Unfortunately, much of Wikipedia's material on royalty and nobility is based on such sources, which are only allowed if the writer is already a published expert on the topic. There was an extensive discussion a few months ago at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 103#Self-published royalty websites. In the case of Heraldica, there are over 1000 links to the site and some articles are based entirely on it. I'm not sure that my approach towards cleaning up the problem has been the best - the key problems is in how to distinguish and deal with documents which the site merely hosts, as opposed to those which Veldes has written himself. I focused initially on those concerning living people, but this is just the start of a big project, involing at least four other extensively used websites as well. If you have any thoughts on how to do it better, or if you think you could handle it better than I, I'd be happy to hear more from you.   Will Beback  talk  17:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you please weigh in or vote if proper?

Have made a suggestion at James I vote. Mugginsx (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Anglican clergymen and their middle names

The problem is that Wikipedia has a naming policy and you are just abiding by it; but many other researchers using the British Library, Lambeth Palace Library and other eminent collections tend to google the longer names. I'm not sure to what extent you are aware that in the world of Anglican scholarship many writers do routinely refer to clergymen of yesteryear by their full name, certainly James Henderson Singer would get an instant recognition from those of us who have studied the Irish clergy that James Singer does not. Bashereyre (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Great idea

Usually by the time I write an article I've got a good idea what they were commonly known as; and will in the future use that as my guide. Bashereyre (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC) PS Wikipedia is a massive and lasting contribution to the planet's education: you and I have both in our humble way helped it to be so!