User talk:DBD/Archive 28

Archives

Archive 1 (July 2005 – July 2006)
Archive 2 (August 2006)
Archive 3 (September – October 2006)
Archive 4 (November 2006 – Jan 2007)
Archive 5 (February – April 2007)
Archive 6 (May 2007)
Archive 7 (June – July 2007)
Archive 8 (August – December 2007)
Archive 9 (January – March 2008)
Archive 10 (April – June 2008)
Archive 11 (July – September 2008)
Archive 12 (October – November 2008)
Archive 13 (Dec 2008 – May 2009)
Archive 14 (June 2009 – May 2010)
Archive 15 (June 2010 – January 2011)
Archive 16 (February – July 2011)
Archive 17 (August – November 2011)
Archive 18 (Dec 2011 – January 2012)
Archive 19 (February – March 2012)
Archive 20 (April – July 2012)
Archive 21 (August – October 2012)
Archive 22 (Nov 2012 – March 2013)
Archive 23 (April – July 2013)
Archive 24 (August – November 2013)
Archive 25 (Dec 2013 – April 2014)
Archive 26 (May – October 2014)
Archive 27 (Nov 2014 – May 2015)
Archive 28 (June – October 2015)
Archive 29 (Nov 2015 – April 2016)
Archive 30 (May – November 2016)
Archive 31 (Dec 2016 – July 2017)
Archive 32 (August – October 2017)
Archive 33 (Nov 2017 – July 2018)
Archive 34 (August 2018 – May 2019)
Archive 35 (June – November 2019)
Archive 36 (Dec 2019 – June 2020)
Archive 37 (Sep 2020 – Aug 2021)
Archive 38 (Sep 2021 – June 2022)

June–October 2015

No sooner said than done!

Can't have you sitting at an un-Wikied desk... Bashereyre (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!!!

Happy First Edit Day, DBD, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 08:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C of E Assistant Bishops List

Can't seem to find it. I was filling in the red bits! Bashereyre (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DBD/List of assistant bishops in the Church of England DBD 11:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Birthday Honours List

I note that some of the more famous already have their honour on the page. So does Sir Lenny Henry become a knight once it is officially announced; or when the queen's sword falls on his noble shoulders? Just wondering, but don't tell you know who!Bashereyre (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am given to understand that honours may be used as soon as they are announced, except obviously for peerages whose specific titles need to be gazetted before use. DBD 17:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DBD

Bashereyre (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your continual problematic editing

Please stop it with your continual adding of information as factual before it is actually so. I will be removing any and all further instances of this kind of nonsense by you. It is not acceptable. Anglicanus (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I have been adding in these cases is sourced information — that scheduled dates for certain events have been announced. I do not know of any guidelines which I have been breaking with such edits: certainly not WP:CRYSTAL which states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." — these events are clearly notable within the contexts I have been adding them, they are almost certain to take place and I always phrase these edits such that it is clear the dates are not absolutely definite.

Unless you can provide clear and compelling examples of guidance which these edits have broken, then it is your arrogant unilateral condemnation of perfectly harmless — and indeed generally helpful — behaviour which is unacceptable. DBD 21:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling we'd done this before. We have: [1] DBD 20:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Including appropriately worded information about "scheduled or expected future events" in the body of the article is one thing and is quite acceptable. Presenting such information as if it is already factual, such as including it in info boxes and in adding succession boxes, is another matter and is not acceptable. Anglicanus (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I contest that it is not another matter. According to whom or what is it not acceptable. Also, we'll talk about alternative episcopal oversight wording at Talk:Diocese of London. DBD 18:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Deanery of Lafford (and other deaneries)

Hello DBD. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Deanery of Lafford, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A deanery (in effect, a sub-diocese) in the Church of England is generally notable. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DBD, you should always sign and date messages, even if they are templates. Speedy deletion is a tool for removing articles that are clearly of no significance. This is defined at a very low level, and if an article is not notable, it still may be found to be significant. Deaneries of the Church of England can be easily shown to be significant, and it does not matter if the articles don't prove that. If you believe that these articles are not notable, then you should take them through the longer process of deletion. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They seemed cut-and-dried non-notable to me, but fair enough :) Discussion is always good. (Sorry I forgot to sign; I must have assumed that was automatic.) DBD 11:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deanery of Alresford DBD 20:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again

It should be bleeding obvious that "area" shouldn't be included in this way in the info box. As is your usual custom you keep on inventing your own style policies. Just stop this nonsense. Anglicanus (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you see that you are doing exactly that of which you are accusing me?! Unless you can show me a policy which states this "bleeding obvious", then it is not only not obvious but also nonsense. DBD 13:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Burridge (priest)

Hi. I don't see where WP:NCWC suggests "priest" would be preferred over "dean". Could you explain? Thanks. — Earwig ^talk 23:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; my bad, that isn't specifically stated therein. Rather, it is an application of the principle that we use broader dab words rather than narrower and, as NCWC mentions wrt bishops, we prefer (bishop) to (archbishop) as the former is an Holy Order whereas the latter is a fragment of a job title. Same goes for (priest), which is the order into which Burridge is ordained, vs (dean), which is an incomplete version of (Dean of King's College London). DBD 08:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Harold Jones and Robert O'Neill. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:HONORIFIC

It is my understanding that MOS:HONORIFIC only applies to the subjects of biographical articles and does not apply to the styles and titles of other people mentioned in these articles or in non-biographical articles. I note that you have been removing honorifics from multiple articles based on your own understanding of this MoS guideline. I believe your understanding is incorrect and that this is clear from other MoS guidelines on using styles and titles in articles. Please do not continue removing any more styles and titles until this matter is clarified. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AW. I've discussed this above at #Honorfics (sic) but am of course perfectly happy to discuss again. DBD 08:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Referred by WP:Catholicism) Looking over a number of your edits, I see some potential for mistakes or ambiguities to come in. In a list of parishes and parish priests, it's probably not necessary to label each and every priest as "Father", but it seems excessive to remove the title "Monsignor" from those who are entitled to the style of address. If the article referred to the same person multiple times, it would be appropriate to drop "Monsignor" after the first use, but removing it entirely seems excessive. Similarly with titles in the article Presiding Bishop, where they serve to underline that the person being referred to is clergy. In the article Porky's II: The Next Day, the character Reverend Flavel is referred to as "Reverend" by the other characters; removing "Reverend" while leaving in Commissioner Gebhardt's title is an error. (Both should be left in, as both are referred to with their title by the other characters in the movie.)

These are the sort of edits which shouldn't be made blindly using AWB or some other semi-automated tool; you should look at the article as a whole and the context in which the title appears, before removing all occurrences of a person's title. Argyriou (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Argyriou. Thanks for writing. I really appreciate your directness — I agree there could be some potential for ambiguities and indeed mistakes. I'm glad we agree that lists of priests don't require Rev or Fr, and I take your point over Monsignor: but how important is it that readers know that she or he is a Monsignor? With priests we are either assuming that readers know they are Rev/Fr/Rev Fr or that that's not something they need to know. As for Presiding Bishop and this edit which Afterwriting (talk · contribs) reverted, my contention is that in context it is usually perfectly clear that such people are whatever-kind-of-clergy (and where this hasn't been the case I have achieved this by adding context).

As for "Porky's"(!) I agree I completely dropped the ball: in other cases where a fiction article has come up I've simply skipped it. As you say, I shall be more vigilant with AWB. Thanks again. DBD 10:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ordination of women in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney

added a link pointing to Peter Watson

Ripon College Cuddesdon

added a link pointing to Bishop of Dorchester

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English Anglican priests vs Church of England priests

Hi DBD! As you edit a lot of Anglican biographies, could you help clear up a confusion. You'll find a discussion on User talk:Marcocapelle: they have changed the categories so that all CoE priests are tagged as English Anglican priests, I disagree. Thanks in advance, Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 02:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Powell Barnes

It's not clear to a couple of us why this was renamed. His middle name was commonly used to disambiguate him in his times, so it is his common name. Also he was a Queensland politician not an Australian one. OK if we move it back? Kerry (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kerry. It was renamed it good faith because it looked to me like George Barnes was his commonname; but since you know better, please do move it back :) DBD 08:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Thomas

I did not see any evidence that this is the most commonly used name for James Henry Thomas. Sources given there seem to rather support the long form. If you do want to move the article, I suggest to use WP:RM and to start a relevant discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 13:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diocese of London

You may be interested in expressing an opinion on the discussion page of Anglican Diocese of London (England) about its move from Diocese of London. Afterwriting (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Irwin (s)

Are father and son Bashereyre (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback RE: TEC consecrators sources

Hello, DBD. You have new messages at Janus532's talk page.
Message added 17:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ronald Bowlby

His "common name", as used in the majority of official reliable sources, is "Ronald Bowlby". The fact that he is also known as "Ronnie Bowlby" does not change this fact. When I was in a parish near Southwark he was nearly always referred to as "Ronald". Anglicanus (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second Anglicanus. Pretty much every move you are making seems to convert a well established three word name to a two word format, or something similar. In this very talk page you have comments from several users regarding this: a) from me regarding William Holden Hutton b) from Kusma regarding J. H. Thomas c) from Kerry Raymond regarding George Powell Barnes d) from Parkywiki and Victuallers regarding William Hunt Painter and probably some others.

Do you really assert you checked all of the cases thoroughly before moving them? Solomon 7968 11:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have I asserted that? I do have a bit of a Google first, to see if that name was commonly used; but most of all, from the evidence you see, I am happy to let things lie when I don't have a compelling argument. If I were edit-warring or what-have-you, that would be bad behaviour and a cause for concern. I am BOLD, I am sometimes Reverted, then we Discuss (either in brief or at length.) I would have hoped that was commendable. DBD 20:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did re-moved William Holden Hutton (reverting my move) and even removed the "William" bit from the article text moving it to the ALTERNATIVE NAMES section in persondata. Given the number of moves you make it is hard to tell if it is typical behaviour of yours but please don't re-move an article if an editor has raised objection in any manner. Solomon 7968 23:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Bruce Knight

DBD I think this gentleman's family name was Bruce Knight. Can you check, please Bashereyre (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This: [2] and a load of other search results showing "Dean Bruce Knight" "W Bruce Knight" and similar, combined with his brother being apparently Knight-Bruce would seem to suggest both are surnames. DBD 16:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact James's page says he was born Knight and took -Bruce by RL. DBD 17:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dean's machine

Will look at asap as soon as I have finished my various jobs06:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Bashereyre (talk)

Q

thank you for taking my question. Are you aware of "flying bishops" being used in non Canterbury Anglicans parishes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.134.232 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 October 2015

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Sorry. DBD 16:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]