User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 6

NowCommons: File:Callington Church.jpg

File:Callington Church.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Callington Church.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Callington Church.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

File:St Neot Church.jpg is now available as Commons:File:St Neot Church.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Millbrook.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Millbrook.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen

Hi Necrothesp, nothing heard from each other for a long time, eh? For your information I had removed the "The Times"-reference on the article above because I had found only mentions of the obituary, but it not itself, and therefore have tried to replace it with other references; however nevertheless I'm fine with your reinsertion. Also personally I consider two colums more aesthetic, but that's rather a matter of taste. Finally I would like to inform you that in succession boxes we generally add a space between a year and a – (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization/Guidelines#B._Years_and_dates). Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's useful to include any reference, whether online or not. Print references are not superseded by online references. I'm not sure why we would add the spaces in the dates - it's not a normal thing to do - but if that's what the guidelines say... -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for re-re-directing that troublesome category (List of honorary British knighthoods and dameships to List of honorary British knights and dames). Sorry I messed up. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You're right that it should have been renamed long ago. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies re

Sorry for that unintentional edit to a work page of yours. I was searching through the project for refs to Cope and yours came up. I applied the change without checking that this was not an article. For my own info. is there a difficulty with my proposed article name? Don't want to step on toes, but he is widely known by the informal 'Andy'; better in certain quarters than his actual given names Alfred William. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem if that's what he was better known as. In those lists I use the full name in order to add redirects if necessary. I'd appreciate it if you'd add a redirect to his full name when you put the article up so my page will link and I can eliminate another name from my to do list. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. Will do on the redirect. RashersTierney (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Film stuff...

Can I ask that on well-developed articles with a "legacy" section, you incorporate the information you're adding into the legacy section instead of creating a small section of "fiction"? Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is appropriate in the "legacy" section, since I don't really see how a film depiction is a legacy. But I'm prepared to compromise, so okay. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

VC

User:Roman Spinner has taken it upon him/herself to arbitrarily move several articles from name (VC) to name (Victoria Cross recipient). Could you take a look please Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Becke

Hi. I noticed that you added a lot of information to the Shriley Becke article using the "Who Was Who" reference, but you also moved her from "Possibly living people" to "Living people"... I don't know much about that particular source, but if she was in "Who Was Who" vs. "Who's Who", doesn't that mean that she's deceased? Just curious. Cheers, CP 23:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Should have been Who's Who! She's still alive. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks! Cheers, CP 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Military men

I recognize your great experience here--you been an admin almost twice as long as I have--, but I'd still like to check that before prodding these articles, have you been checking in at least the Googles and especially Google News Archive to verify that they are not possibly notable in some other fashion? DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

These have all been created by a chap who is into the military history of Wisconsin (they all came from Wisconsin). Three of these articles have now been deleted after AfDs. I think the time has come to get rid of all of them. I haven't prodded anyone who did seem notable (e.g. those who reached general or admiral rank, received at least two awards or the Medal of Honor). But the others only seem notable for having a single second-tier decoration, which has generally been established as being below the notability bar for WP (since it would cover hundreds of thousands of individuals). Each article consists of the citation for the award and little else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nina Fishman

Fair enough if you think my simplification of the institutional history of the University of Westminster introduced errors. My insertion of the Sassoon reference st the end of the paragraph was in accordance with WP practice regarding Inline citations. Philip Cross (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. However, if the reference applies to the whole article then it makes no sense to apply it only to a single sentence, thereby suggesting that the rest of the article is unreferenced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nisha Patel-Nasri and Murder of Nisha Patel-Nasri pages

Looking at these, I was a bit surprised to see categories carried on the redirect page, especially the Category:Corrupt police officers. Following the Redirect, I can see that this presumably relates to the "Controversy" section on the Murder of... page? But wouldn't it be better to carry such information (ideally including citation) on the page itself, to support the categorisation? AllyD (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's normal to categorise on the redirect page if the article itself is not directly about the person. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Necrothesp! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 120 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. James Rodd - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Winifred Barker - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Move of John Smeaton

Why have you just unilaterally moved this article? This was moved from John Smeaton (baggage handler) to John Smeaton (born 1976) in a legitimate Requested Move on the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I just came across a poorly named article and moved it, as I am entitled to do. Nothing "unilateral" about it, since edits to Wikipedia don't require discussion (we'd never get anywhere if they did!). I wasn't aware there had been previous discussion about it and as someone else has apparently pointed out, dates of birth are generally considered a very poor way to disambiguate. Mr Smeaton is known for something he did when he was a baggage handler and pretty much only for something he did when he was a baggage handler (after all, everything he's done since stems from the fame he achieved when he was a baggage handler), so I really don't see the problem with using that as a disambiguator. It also appears that the Afr was far from conclusive. If you want to rename it, I suggest John Smeaton (QGM) is a far better title - after all, "(GC)" and "(VC)" are already used as disambiguators. Keep it as John Smeaton (born 1976) and you will get other people moving it, since it's a poor title. The fact I instinctively moved it supports this. The only justification for using a year of birth is usually when two people had the same name and the same occupation. The more famous John Smeaton certainly wasn't a baggage handler! -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally never just move an article on instinct without looking at the talk page. But anyway, please undo your move now that you know this move had already been discussed and agreed in the normal way, and your subsequent reversal of that consensus is now disputed. You can file another RM if you really want, I'll freely participate to see if we can come up with something else, but I am not interested in having an RM discussion here on your talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I find that poorly named articles have usually been so named by new editors and rarely have anything on the talk page. However, I'm really not particularly concerned about this article at this time, so I'll move it back if you so desire. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. MickMacNee (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

William Umbach

You converted the Umbach article into a redirect, however, you neglected to remove the William Umbach hyperlinks from the Tarnak Farm incident article. Could you, when you have time? Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

redirects after your recent moves

Excuse me, but after you move an article, according to Help:Moving a page#Other notes you're meant to sort out the consequential double redirects. I see that the help page allows for a time-lag in case someone want to undo your move, so I assume that's why you haven't done them yet. Meanwhile I've done the job for Sam Watson (trade unionist) and Peter Lee (trade unionist) since they were the ones I've been involved with. I'm sure you'll check the rest in due course. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Golden Gate, Kiev

I just made an edit to one of your contributions. It was on the page for the Golden Gate of Kiev, according to the page history you had added the bolded portion: 'This gateway was one of three constructed by Yaroslav the Wise, Prince of Kiev, in 1037 (year of 6545 from the world creation).' I removed the portion which claimed a year from world creation. I'm not sure why you included this, so I thought I would bring it to your attention. It's the only time I've never edited a page, it's not something that I am in the habit of doing, and you appear to be an accomplished admin, so I didn't want to offend if I have misunderstood something. I deleted it because it appears to refer to the age of the Earth according to Christian Creationists. This did not seem appropriate nor germane to the topic. If I have misunderstood or am in error, please forgive me.Tsentan (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the only edit I made to this page was to move it to a better title. The drivel you rightly deleted was added by User:Aleksandr Grigoryev[1]. I'm not sure why you thought it was me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and my apologies for attributing the change to you. I usually just use Wikipedia for research and rarely edit the pages. I am likely in error in how I am reading the edit history of the page, but it appeared to me as though you made the change. I thought it seemed odd judging by your history otherwise, which is why I messaged you. Thanks again, and for helping to make Wikipedia what it is to amateur researchers such as myself.Tsentan (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I hope you continue to edit. As you say, adding Creationist nonsense like this to Wikipedia is not appropriate and such things need to be deleted. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 Honours List

In 2010 one Helen Jackson was named CBE for "for services to the Women and Pensions Network and to the community in South Yorkshire". However, you attributed to CBE to Helen Jackson, M.P.. But there is no similarity between the CBE appointee's accomplishments and those mentioned on Helen Jackson's page. So I disambiguated the name at the 2010 New Year Honours. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's the same woman. [2] She's an ex-MP for Sheffield Hillsborough, so I don't know why it should be so surprising that she's also involved with the community in South Yorkshire! Because someone's full details are not listed on Wikipedia as yet does not mean anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. So sorry. My Bad! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

IRC Channel for WikiProject Law Enforcement

I've proposed an IRC channel on the Freenode IRC network for WikiProject Law Enforcement. Several WikiProjects have done this (seeWP:IRC). My comments are located on the Project discussion page,[3]. Thanks! --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 07:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Set indices

Hi, Necrothesp! I understand well why you would mistake this page for a disambig, but it was not intended as such. It was intended as a set index article. The current version is merely a start; once improved, it is going to look like this one (which I hope at this point no one would mistake for a dab :)). Please let me know if you have further questions. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 17, 2010; 16:26 (UTC)

Fair enough. It looked like it was intended to be a disambiguation page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the dab proper, I've just restored "Alexandrovsky Sad" to "see also", but I'm not sure if this entry belongs on the dab in the first place. There are plenty of names which have "Alexandrovsky" as a part; I can't recall whether the MOSDAB allows listing them separately or not. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 17, 2010; 16:46 (UTC)

Guidelines say that such entries should only be included if they are also commonly referred to only by the disambiguation term and that "if there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does." It seems reasonable to assume that a station may be referred to only by the first part of its name. Personally I dislike the use of "see also" for these terms (and it doesn't seem to be mandated by guidelines), but I'm not bothered enough about it to argue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not bothered enough about the whole page :), but for what it's worth, the station is not routinely called "Alexandrovsky". As a native speaker, I can assure you it is more likely to be called simply "Sad", although I don't believe it's terribly common either. At any rate, I'm passing the buck to you—do with that entry whatever you think needs to be done. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 17, 2010; 17:20 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to George Murray (civil servant)

Hello,

In making this edit you made a rhetorical argument in the edit summary and reverted without talking to me, or anyone, which is a bit poor form. You also seemed to suggest that people don't talk about the NHY and BH lists in speech, but I don't quite understand what relevance this has (and I certainly wouldn't agree - I do, if nothing else). If you object to the naming convention (?) then you probably should take it to a useful central location for a proper discussion rather than individual edits to scattered pages. ;-) You also re-added a duplicative (redirected) link to the Order of the Bath which adds little and is rather against WP:LINKS#Repeated links. Finally, you removed red links because "they really do not need linking in any case"; well, we have articles about dozens of NHY/BH lists which and anyway, this seems a very unproductive way of building a wiki. :-)

Grateful for your thoughts.

James F. (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, what I meant (although I notice a mistype in the edit summary) was that people refer to the "1920 New Year Honours" not the "New Year Honours 1920", which is absolutely true. I have no idea why these articles were so named, but note that there are redirects in every case from xx New Year Honours to New Year Honours xx. In what way am I required to talk to anyone before I make edits? This has never been Wikipedia policy. I created the article and I don't recall being spoken to before my prose was changed! As to the added link to the Order of the Bath, I think it adds further information to the article and it is certainly not mandated against. I have done it in every one of the many biographical articles I have written about people with British honours. I don't see the point of linking the honours list, since they don't add any information to the article. Is it really of interest who else was honoured at the same time, which is the only additional information this would give us? -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Reg: Sadul Singh (administrator)

Hi, Could you kindly let me know wher did you get the info from. Thanks for putting up the article. Ysrathore (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, it came from Who Was Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Peter Turner (civil servant)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Peter Turner (civil servant), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Turner (civil servant). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article

I just caught up to a message you left me over a year ago about an article I worked on that you listed for deletion. I suggest you look under 4897, and see the discussion I just added. Instead of posting here, which I may or may not see within the next year, if you wish, you can send an email: sharonro246@yahoo.com Sharonro246 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kyiv National Linguistic University

In Ukraine the official name of the capital is Kyiv. Kiev is a Russian translation of Ukrainian word Kyiv. So please cancel Your edits in this article. Thanks --Ліонкінг (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. However, the common name for the city in English is Kiev (just as Venezia is known as Venice and Moskva is known as Moscow) and that is the title of our article on the city. Until that changes then Kiev will be the way we refer to the city on English Wikipedia. On Ukrainian Wikipedia you can call it what you like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't agree with. In all official documents we use Kyiv. Speaking about KNLU, it has it's official name in English. You can see it just in the official web-site of the university: Kyiv National Linguistic University.

I agree that more than half inhabitans of Kyiv use Russian language as mother. But there are a state language in Ukraine - it's Ukrainian. According to the part 7 article 20 chapter 1 of Constitution of Ukraine (Constitution on the official website of the Parliament)

"The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv".

--Ліонкінг (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the university I think that it is wrong to change the name of the university if it has it's official name in English. Yours --Ліонкінг (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This should be taken to the appropriate page, which is Talk:Kiev/naming. There you will see that there have been several attempts to change the name of the article, all of which have failed due to lack of support. Until it is changed then for consistency's sake we should use "Kiev" throughout Wikipedia. This is no different from, say, the example of Köln, which is commonly referred to in English by its French name Cologne. Köln is the city's only official name, but that is not what we call it. Looking at it the other way, London's only official name is London, but the French call it Londres. This happens in language. I appreciate that for political and cultural reasons Ukrainian-speakers like the city to be referred to as Kyiv and I am sympathetic to that, but this doesn't change its common name outside Ukraine, since that is the name non-Ukrainians have used for centuries. And Wikipedia policy is to use the common name in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll return to this questiion later. --Ліонкінг (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Frank Hassett

Good move! Pdfpdf (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Britain's Got Talent

Hi! Could you clarify this edit, as I've been seeing a lot of to-ing and fro-ing with this issue. My understanding is that The Cheeky Girls were in Season 4, and that they're obviously notable, but to be honest I didn't see BGT and only have my niece's gossip to go on...

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There appear to be newspaper reports that they did audition, but it doesn't appear to have been actually broadcast. If that's the case, then I don't think they can really be included. It seems it was more a publicity stunt than a genuine audition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks - that makes sense. Publicity shy they are not... Cheers! TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed not! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

S.J. Quinney College of Law

I know this was a while ago, but I'm curious why you added a space to the title of S. J. Quinney College of Law between the S and J. Is there some sort of naming policy that's applicable? The university itself never has a space between them so I'd like to change it back. Thanks. Klubbit (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I found the relevant section: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and abbreviated names. It says "there is no consensus for always using spaces between initials", so I'm going to move it since that's how the university formats it. Klubbit (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:People from Tiverton

Category:People from Tiverton, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2010 Balamban, Cebu bus accident

An editor has nominated 2010 Balamban, Cebu bus accident, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Balamban, Cebu bus accident and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Military ranks

You moved Brigadier General back to the capitalized version, despite that being against the MoS (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)), the common use of the rank in English language sources (dictionaries, media, ...), and the examples of e.g. Brigadier general (United States) (at the lower case version for nearly two years now), Rear admiral and Rear admiral (United States). Or of course Lieutenant colonel (United States), Lieutenant general (United States), and Petty officer. While there are many counterexamples still around, sadly, it is not as if this one was the sole execption by far. Considering all this, I would be happy if you could undo your move back to the capitalized version. Fram (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It has long been Wikipedia convention that military ranks are fully capitalised. The vast majority of ranks are so capitalised. There is therefore absolutely no reason to make an exception for this rank. I have no particular preference one way or the other, but I am fond of consistency and that currently means the ranks should be fully capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of ranks are a single word. Of the multi-word ranks, there are a fair number correctly capitalized, and a (probably larger) number incorrectly. To move one back from the correct version to the incorrect, just because many others do the same, is not really improving Wikipedia. Inertia is never a good reason to undo changes. Fram (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide has no mention of ranks at all, so the "convention" is an unwritten habit which is contrary to our guidelines. Fram (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps it is. But never-the-less, it is a FACT that the convention exists, and it is a FACT that there are MANY editors that support it. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"The vast majority of ranks are a single word." - I don't agree. I'm not about to start splitting hairs, but I do think that if you are going to make such sweeping generalisations, you really should do your homework, get your facts straight, and have at least some evidence to support your POV. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"Of the multi-word ranks, there are a fair number correctly capitalized" - What does "fair number" mean? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, please do your homework first. There is a tiny minority "capitalised" in the manner you consider to be "correct". Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"To move one back from the correct version to the incorrect, just because many others do the same, is not really improving Wikipedia." - You can hardly categorise that as an "objective statement"! You are completely entitled to your own POV, but it might be a good idea to think about why others (many others) have the opposite POV. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I called it a convention and not a guideline. However, it is the case and consistency is better than slavish devotion to "the rules". Many military ranks and appointments actually have at least two words, probably as many if not more than those with a single word (e.g. of the British Army's 17 basic ranks, 8 have two words; of the US Army's 20 basic ranks, 13 have at least two words; of the RAF's 20 ranks, only three have only a single word). They do look rather odd unless fully capitalised, since they are usually seen in combination with a name, which is probably what led to the convention in the first place. They also tend to be abbreviated with capitals (e.g. RSM not rsm), so look strange without (e.g. regimental sergeant major as against Regimental Sergeant Major). Finally, when referred to they will usually be capitalised (e.g. "the Regimental Sergeant Major said..." not "the regimental sergeant major said..."). So, in actual fact, Wikipedia conventions (i.e. use common name) probably are being followed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The convention in the MOS is that when applied to a name, the ranks are capitalised, when mentioned in passing, they are lower-cased. That said, I think capitalising only one of the words can look a bit odd, depending on context. The MILHIST style guide does actually link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms. I think a lot of editors would consider even "the Regimental Sergeant Major said..." to be incorrect (and so would several newspaper styleguides). I don't think the fact that they are abbreviated in capitals precludes using lower-case if writing in full. David Underdown (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What I actually meant was in common usage, not in Wikipedia usage. I don't think the existence of the abbreviation precludes the use of lower-case, but I do think it looks strange. However, it's not a convention I introduced (although it is one I follow) and if there's consensus to change then I'll go along with that, but only if it's applied across the board and not just to the odd article as it was here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Common usage is not being followed, as was established in earlier move requests, and in this discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68#Rank articles: capitalization of title, where most of the opposition came from a) misunderstanding the difference between a person holding a rank, vs. the rank in general and b) the Wikipedia habit of capitalizing the first word of a title, where many people found it "wrong" to have "Rear admiral" when it should be either "Rear Admiral" or "rear admiral". Considering that the other 3 million articles do just fine with this system, I still have trouble accepting this as valid opposes. Similarly, the reason of consistency only (partially) works when you restrit yourself to military ranks: the larger consistency of using the same system throughout Wikipedia seems to have less weight for people wanting consistency and opposing for that reason. Anyway, I did propose to move all articles to the correct capitalization, but the discussion fizzled out... Perhaps I have to try it again at a more general forum, not at the Wikiproject where many people seem to think from a military point of view, not from a general one. Fram (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be more POV than acknowledgement of reality going on here. (And this is not the first place I've noticed such a phenomenum!)
On the one hand, there are the "purists" and "policy"; on the other, there are the "pragmatists" and "reality".
The purists, of course, KNOW what's "right", (independent of reality). They have policy to back them up!! The pragmatists can observe / have observed what is real, and can see the conflict between the reality of what is, and the so-called "reality" of stated policy.
It seems to me that the purists have NO interest in reality - only in what (they believe) is "right", without any interest in or consideration of or discussion of the "usefuleness", (or any other characteristic, for that matter), of this "rightness". Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Considering that the other 3 million articles do just fine with this system" - If you really believe that, then you are really fooling yourself. (I'll hastily point out that such a sweeping generalisation isn't fooling me, and I doubt it's fooling anyone - even you.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"and opposing for that reason" - And that, of course, is a COMPLETELY neutral statement absolutely deviod of POV. Isn't it? (And if you haven't picked up on the fact that my response is dripping (gushing?) with sarcasm, well, let me tell you: "I don't agree.") Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Perhaps I have to try it again at a more general forum, not at the Wikiproject where many people seem to think from a military point of view, not from a general one." - If you are to do that, I would comment that you are completely missing the point of reality, and imposing policy without giving any consideration to whether it is "good policy", "appropriate policy", or even "relevant policy". Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

My personal view is that: "It's neither as simple, nor as black&white, as I feel you are presenting it." Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Another facet of my personal view is: "Why are we debating this on poor Necrothesp's talk page?" Such a discussion deserves a MUCH wider forum. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To start with your last point: I started this discussion with Necorthesp here after he moved the page back (which was in itself not a problem). You then also joined this discussion (which I also don't have a problem with). But as the one that joined a discussion between the user of this talkpage, and the user who was reverted, I think it is kinda strange that you wonder why we are having this conversation here.

As for the rest of your comment: I know that you don't believe it is as black and white, but when actually looking at source sabout military ranks (the usage in dictionaries, newspapers, and even in official military documents), it becomes rather soon obvious that the vast majority of the former two, and a significant portion of the latter, use the ranks in lowercase when speaking about them in general, not when referring to a specific person of course. Finally, as for the other 3 million articles, yes, most of ths have no problems with titles following normal usage of the English language. We have Prime minister, Chief executive officer and Vicar general, to give some related examples. I don't see many people compaining about all these. Fram (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Other matters/topics:

• "Anyway, I did propose to move all articles to the correct capitalization, but the discussion fizzled out... " - Do you mind providing a link to that discussion, please? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• and b) the Wikipedia habit of capitalizing the first word of a title, where many people found it "wrong" to have "Rear admiral" when it should be either "Rear Admiral" or "rear admiral". - I'm not wanting to come across as trivially pedantic, but I do feel it's necessary to point out to you that it is NOT a "Wikipedia habit" to capitalise "the first word of a title". It is a wikipedia system design constraint. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68#Rank articles: capitalization of title. Fram (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. And thanks for the link, most appreciated.

As for the rest of your response, I feel you have missed almost all of my points and questions. It's late here - I'll provide a better reply later. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ismael Tocornal's Honorary Knighthood

In 2005, you added Ismael Tocornal to List of honorary British knights and dames (now being redrafted in table format Talk:List of honorary British knights and dames/Temp table version draft. You listed him as having a GCVO from 1919, yet on his home page and on the supporting Spanish language biography, he is listed as being a GCMG from the King's Chile visit in 1919. I am wondering where you got your information from. A royal visit would suggest a GCVO, but he is also a diplomat, so the GCMG is not out of the question. My very quick internet searches and London Gazette search haven't revealed anything reliable other than his presenting his diplomatic credentials in 1919. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't find any trace of this now. I added those names before Wikipedia was particularly hot on referencing and I have no idea where I got them from. As you say, the London Gazette seems to have no mention of his knighthood (although it would never surprise me if his name had been misspelt - earlier editions of the Gazette are not overly reliable on foreign names!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, it was worth a shot. With respect to the LG, indeed - I have noticed this with numbers of others I have investigated already, it is also not terribly reliable in reporting appointments/creations at all - particularly where they are ad hoc awards made outside of the scheduled cycle. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Necrothesp. You have new messages at Talk:Temple Sinai (Oakland, California).
Message added 18:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barbara Jane Harrison

Re your GF move, I'm not sure that the article needs to be at this title. Firstly, there does not appear to be any need to disambiguate from any other Wikinotable people named Barbara Jane Harrison. Even VC winners such as John Brunt do not have the honorific letters appended in the article title. Secondly, BJH's GC was a posthumous award, so she would not have been known under that title during her lifetime, but simply as Miss Barabara Jane Harrison. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use the name by which the individual was known, not the full name (unless that was the name by which they were known). Miss Harrison was clearly known as Jane Harrison, not Barbara Jane Harrison, as that is what is inscribed on her gravestone. It is also common to use (GC) or (VC) to disambiguate, as you will see if you look at Category:British recipients of the George Cross. Brunt does not need disambiguating as he is the only John Brunt with a Wikipedia article. Those VCs and GCs who do need disambiguating have the parenthetical initials. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Mavis Villliers - bio edit

Hello Necrothesp, With respect, I find your edit of my bio of Mavis Villiers to be perverse and obcessive. - The subject is Mavis Villiers not Mavis Clare Cooney. If you google Mavis Villiers; every mention, every accreditation of her film, stage and TV roles, every newspaper article, she is Mavis Villiers. If you want to be correct, her legal name was Mavis Clare Miller. You might have based your edit/criticism on some rule, but I think your interpretation is not commom sense. Please think again.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My main objection is that "born Mavis Clare Cooney" implies that her stage name somehow became her real name, which it didn't, and that her middle name was no longer her middle name, which it was. Feel free to alter it back to something you prefer that addresses these issues, noting the guidelines - the real name should be bolded and not in parentheses. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 8 July 201 (UTC)

I still can't get my mind around your criticism; the technicality of your argument, and your inference are not common sense; the terms "born Mavis...." are commonly used and well understood. She did become Mavis Villiers; if she had changed her name by deed poll, would that make any difference to you? On the same matter: I think Pseudonyms and Stage Names (professional names) should be treated differently in the guidelines.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would make a difference, as it would then be her proper name as opposed to merely a stage name by which she was known. "Born" would then be correct. As it stands, she was still Mavis Clare Cooney (or whatever her married name was). -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Stable Belts

Dear Necrothesp

The Berkshire Yeomanry stable belt is the same colours and proportions as the Royal Anglian Regiment. I hope this is of assistance. I looke to see if I could edit you page but frankly was utterly baffled, so I will leave it to you. I can be contacted on andrewgfrench@hotmail.com if you have any questions.

Yours sincerely

Andrew French Asst Hon Curator - Berkshire Yeomanry Museum TA Centre, Bolton Road, Windsor, Berkshire SL4 3JG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.27.171 (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall add it. Yes, the page is rather confusing to edit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Present Laughter

Garry's age – well caught! (How easily memory deceives one about the ipsissima verba!)

Do we customarily include the "Royal" in references to the NT? Nobody else does, on the whole. – Tim riley (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently rehearsing the role of Garry, so have had constant exposure recently! I have to say that since it became the Royal in 1988, I have personally never heard it referred to as anything else other than the "Royal National". -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

1948 Gatow air disaster

Hello Necrothesp, I noticed in this article two in that area non-existing location names. I took the liberty to change them to what I assume to be the intended locations. Thought I'd mentions this as, according to the history, you were the one who wrote the original edit, some time ago, and I don't think you just invented something. Unless it was just a case of typos, I would like to inquire about the source for the names (Hahnerberg and Dahlof, which I assume to be in fact Hahneberg and Dallgow). Regards, G-41614 (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The names came directly from the Foreign Office report cited in the references. It wouldn't surprise me if they were incorrect - British government reports of that era were not always particularly good at foreign names! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Got that impression before. If you say so yourself, well, long as you don't mind my editing ... :) G-41614 (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Be my guest, if you think those names are more likely. I don't know Berlin that well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:People from Heywood

Category:People from Heywood, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Occuli (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

1944 Cheshunt B 24 Bomber crash

Would you like to comment or leave an opinion on 1944 Cheshunt B 24 Bomber crash, I have been researching WWII bomber crashes in the UK and have been adding these on the wiki articles of the locality they have occurred. However I came across a tempate for aircarft rtashes which suggests these should be a separate aerticle. On starting this particular entry I have had nothing but aggrivation. I want to move the article back to Cheshunt, Wackywace just seems to want to delete it.

This also affects LM616 (KO J) Bomber crash 1944 Offley which I have marked with Afd and a merge to tag. Thanks for your anticipated help. Pandaplodder (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We are being talked about :)

Hi! You might wish to follow this conversation. I find it immensely hilarious and can't wait for the next episode! :) Surtsicna (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but have we ever said that Charlotte Corday is not a significant person, that the article is inaccurate or that we know more than those who have written books about her? All we have said is that the MoS should be followed and that she should be referred to by her surname. But apparently by doing this we have challenged the whole corpus of historical research on the woman and committed a serious offence against her memory. Most peculiar! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am truly sorry that you got dragged into this. I sincerely believe that nobody would have had anything against my edit had it not been me who made it. I am not sure who FW dislikes more: me, or the guidelines.[4] But I was right when I said the next episode would be even more fun. See, I play the role of The Spy Who Came in from the Cold and who has his ears all over their conversion[5] and of le petit prince qui peut lire le cyrillique[6], while you are the one listening to my broadcasting.[7] Furthermore, I am also "probably stupid" but I have your support[8] - so I guess it doesn't matter if I am stupid. Since I am probably stupid, I fail to understand how my understanding Cyrillic got into the conversation. Anyway, I never knew that being spoken ill of was so fun. Have fun reading! The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A most strange couple. Ah well. As you say, at least it's entertaining. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Royal British Legion

Hi, I was also wondering why you did that and if you instigated any discussion about it? Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please also explain your other undiscussed moves and redirects concerning the same subject and the poppy appeal and such. Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Because "The" should not generally be used in article titles. Please see Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format: "Avoid definite and indefinite articles: Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or will otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown)." The other moves were to bring the redirects into line and avoid double redirects, as per guidelines. You seem to be under the impression that moves have to be discussed - this is not the case. Articles can be moved to a title which meets the guidelines with no discussion. In fact, no edit on Wikipedia requires previous discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That is fine be bold, if your edits are disputed you move to discussion, I amnot under any impressions at all. Generally, as I have seen THE is usually attached to the B legion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. "The" is commonly attached to many organisations, but not usually in encyclopaedias. There is really no need to dispute an edit which clearly meets guidelines and I am curious why anyone would do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Its just that other users disagree with your edits, have you never experienced that B4? Wikipedia is full of exceptions as you call them.Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, which is why experienced editors change them to conform to guidelines! These guidelines have been formulated over years by Wikipedia editors to give the encyclopaedia a bit of consistency. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

About Esztergom

Hi!

Yes, it appears that the image can't be linked from remote pages. I'll just link the entire photo album The picture was taken at St. Peter's Basilica, where Basilica Cathedralis Esztergom is marked among the longest church buildings. I have a bunch of books that were issued in August 1856, stating it is a basilica, and the first reference is the homepage of the archidiocese, where it also says it is a basilica. I consider the archidiocese homepage a more reliable source, than a random website with a gmail.com email address. What do you consider genuine evidence? The official page of the archdiocese, or a private webpage? I feel a double standard here. Villy (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Miliband

Hi, I saw your revert asnd I did ask for semi prot and it was provided for three days which has expired today I think, leaders from the UK and constant vandal targets and Gordon Brown and David Cameron and possibly Clegg as well are all indef semi protected, can we semi protect it now again or shall we wait for more additions as the one you reverted? Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we need more vandalism first. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

John Bell

Just curious - why did you move John Bell (professor) to John Bell (legal scholar)? – ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Because professor is his academic rank. It doesn't describe what he does, which is what a disambiguator is for. "Professor" and "academic" are bad disambiguators because they provide absolutely no information about the subject other than the fact that they (probably) work in a university. They could be a zoologist, a surgeon, a classicist or a nuclear physicist. Whenever I see an article with a poor disambiguator like this (and sadly there are many) I attempt to move it to a more specific one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you could have added something like "more specific disambiguation" to the move summary. – ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Don Partridge

I see you've removed the Biography header and the table of contents. Can you save me some time, and point me towards the guidance that says that is good practice? Thanks, Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge there is no such guidance, although it has been debated a number of times on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)‎. However, it makes no sense to include a section entitled "Biography" or "Life" in a biographical article. What else is the article about? That amounts to inserting a header for the sake of it, which is utterly pointless. If the story of the individual's life can be divided into two or more sections then that's all well and good (and useful), but a single section? No. Pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - there are other sections in the article, such as Discography; the intro is not distinguished from the rest of the article; and having a list of contents upfront is helpful to readers. See WP:LAYOUT. I may play around with the article further anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be fine to split his life, but headers like "Biography" are unhelpful. In addition, tables of contents are not particularly useful unless the article is a long one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Dominick Browne, 4th Baron Oranmore and Browne

Baron Mereworth was not an Irish title, was it? Mjroots (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ummm. Errr.

Snort. And I thought that I was cynical! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Move of Glen "Frosty" Little to Glen Little (clown)

Hi. Today you made the above article move, and cited as your reason "no nicknames in quotes in title". I am curious about this reason as I have not seen it expressed before. The relevant policy I am aware of is WP:LOWERCASE, that provides "do not enclose titles in quotes" (referring to books and songs where the whole title would otherwise fall within quotes), WP:COMMONNAME that provides "articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources", and WP:NCP which has no specific discussion of the use of quote marks but notes that stage names and pseudonyms may be appropriate article titles when the subject is better publicly known by their stage name than their real name. Could you direct me to the policy you were implementing, please? - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) gives no examples of nicknames in quotes and states that the usual format should be <first name> <last name> with disambiguators in parentheses if required. It is not usual practice on Wikipedia to use nicknames in this way in article titles. The simple rule is how would people usually refer to him? As Glen Little, Glen "Frosty" Little, Frosty Little or Frosty the Clown. The second way is simply not a normal way to refer to somebody, although the others would be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:People from Falmouth

Category:People from Falmouth, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A few notes

Although I appreciate your time sending me your last comments and the fact you have guided me in the right direction in relation to the family tree section on Sophie Dahl which I am thankful for, I do not agree with your interpretation on Police Ranks. I am a serving police officer and have been for many years. I come from a family of police officers dating back to 1903, some of whom were high ranking officers themselves. I am also distantly related to Sir Harold Scott. It is a known fact amongst police throughout the UK that the Commissioner of the Metropolis is the highest ranking officer in the land and is often described by the press and media as being so.

There have been occasions where I have been involved in cases that have involved other forces where there is a conflict over issues during investigations and are dealt with internally by the Chief Constable of the County force and staff of the Commissioner. When this conflict fails to be resolved, the Commissioner himself has become involved and has overridden decisions made by County Chief Constables. Explain this to me? Although you proclaim to be an "Archivist", I am fairly sure I know a bit more about what goes on internally within the Metropolitan Police Service than you do as I work there.

Lastly, I DO NOT claim to "Own" certain pages as I know that is not allowed. Yes I consider myself to be the unofficial chief collaborator on some pages (But do not advertise that fact). I think this because It is ME who has built the pages up from scratch all by my self using information I have researched which has taken me years to source, with very little input from other Users. I respect other peoples sourced information, and simply do not want unsourced information (Lies) added to a page which I happen to feel very passionate about, unless it can be referenced appropriately.

I freely admit that although Wikipedia confuses the hell out of me sometimes and admit I am in no way fluent with its way of submitting Information, I do try my best and sometimes need guidence from people like yourself, However your incorrect interpretation and comments about my personal information in terms of my "Ownership" of certain pages I do find to be upsetting. I am now deleting my account and the information about me and will no longer add information to Wikipedia, which is a shame as i enjoyed it. I am not surprised Wikipedia has a name for itself as sometimes being an inaccurate source of information, but with the likes of you as its "Administrator" what chance has it got! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassianto (talk • contribs) 18:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a little bit oversensitive, I think. I'm afraid you are not correct about the police ranking issues, whether or not you are a serving police officer. For the record, I have studied police history for many years and I am a serving special constable. Yes, it is true that the commissioner is often referred to as the most senior police officer in the country, but claims made by the media are frequently incorrect. The Met does have some extra-territorial functions (e.g. security and counter-terrorism) and in these matters the commissioner is indeed supreme, but that does not mean he is senior to county chief constables in any way. He has no right to intervene in the management of their forces, as you stated. I would encourage you not to leave Wikipedia, not to take advice personally and not to throw insults around. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

William Churchman - reply

In the article William Churchman, I thought the reference, being internally linked, was more misleading than its worth as a reference. I have now unlinked "The Times" - I hope this makes more sense to you. Mark^Dask 02:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've linked The Times every one of the hundreds of times I've used it as a reference, but there you go. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers

The Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers has been nominated for deletion as not notable. As a member of the Rescue Squadron, I am asking if you can help. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Necrothesp. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_17#USAAF_X_of_Y_renamings.
Message added 17:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question

Hello Necrothesp. I noticed that you are removing the cat "Period Films" from articles. Let me first say that I don't disagree with that action. The term is nebulous at best and could be applied to almost every film except one set in the present day - which, of course, 30 years from now become a period film. I am wondering if you think that we might just post it a CFD and then, depending on the outcome, let a bot do the removals. Just a suggestion and please ignore it if you wish. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 18:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already begun a cfd. I am not removing the cat from all articles, but only those that are already included in a subcat, which is standard procedure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sorry I wasn't more thorough in checking out what you were doing. I'll track down the CFD, thanks for getting it started. MarnetteD | Talk 18:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nationality of José B. Nísperos

In discussion here, a reversion of this good-faith edit has been proposed. You may wish to comment. My inclination would be to do the reversion and add a clarifying footnote re U.S. nationality of Filipinos during the U.S. territorial period. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation of Ranks

Gutsy move! FYI, this topic seems to be the subject of seemingly endless debate. e.g.

• Talk:Able Seaman (rank)#Requested move
• Talk:Rear Admiral#Move to Rear admiral
• Talk:Rear Admiral#Move Back to Rear Admiral
• Talk:Rear Admiral#rear admiral and/or Rear Admiral, but Rear admiral?
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68#Rank articles: capitalization of title
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 42#Capitalization of rank titles
• etc.

Good luck, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. I haven't made any mention of capitalisation of ranks! For the record, I've always been in favour of it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. It looks like I was confused too - my post was regarding a move you made on 18 June 2010, which my brain registered as happening yesterday. Given the discussions I mentioned above, I'm surprised that your move did not spark a reaction - The history suggests there was no reaction at all. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh. BTW: (Also for the record), I've also always been in favour of it. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It did spark a reaction, it is right here on this talk page (section "Military ranks"), and you (Pdfpdf) participated in it... That I didn't start an edit war and didn't continue the debate, as it is rather tiring to have the seemingly endless "but mixed case names are terrible" non-ergument used against these moves over and over again, doesn't mean that no one opposed to move back to this name. Fram (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well goodness gracious me. So it did, so it is, so I did, so you didn't, etc. I shall now quietly and sheepishly retire. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Gurong station

Hi, I noticed your de-prod but think you have missed the point. In answer to your question of "why this one", it is because I was wikignoming using Random and came across it. The fact that there are many others probably of similar status does not obligate WP to host a non-notable article on any one of them. Your logic, I'm afraid, seems skewed to me: you appear to be saying that if something is non-notable but there are similar non-notables then their inclusion is justified, which is a nonsense, sorry. I'll put it up for AfD sometime in the future, but thanks for making me think about it a little more. Sitush (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not missed the point at all. My point is to ask why it is non-notable. Is it non-notable because it's in China? We have articles on practically every railway station in Britain or Australia, for example, and they are not considered to be non-notable. So why is this particular station not notable? There seems to be an element of "it's not in an English-speaking country so no one will ever expand the article" about this, which is not in keeping with the international nature of Wikipedia. Apologies if this is not your attitude, but it is sadly one I have seen many times before and which I have always sought to correct where possible. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not notable because it is the one I came across using Random while wikignoming. I would agree completely that a lot of the others would probably turn out to be not notable also ... I just haven't come across them or didn't have the time to examine in any detail. It is nothing to do with regional location and I resent your implication that I am in some way being racist about this - your apology is accepted on this point only reluctantly because you have even missed the point in my explanation above, ie: the reason why I came across the thing and that my reasoning probably would apply to many others. If there is a railway accident, a locomotive trial, a significant incident of some sort or a major centre being served by the station, etc then I could understand notability but otherwise articles like this fail on umpteen counts under WP:NOT as well as WP:Notability. Weel, that's what I think at any rate, but perhaps this discussion has been held before & I've not found it. Would you rather that I proposed a mass AfD? Sitush (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Evidently we shall have to agree to disagree. I believe that all railway stations are inherently notable. Given the number of articles that have been created about them and the fact they're still here, I would suspect that many others would agree with me. As I said, I have seen this "not in an English-speaking country so the notability threshold is higher" attitude many times before and it irritates me immensely. Your reason for the prod ("Obscure...Not notable and little chance of it becoming so") seemed to suggest it. I in no way suggested racism - this attitude is not racist, just misguided, and I'm happy to accept that you don't hold it, although you are evidently more deletionist than I (and I am certainly not an out and out inclusionist). Nor have I missed your point - I understand perfectly what you're saying; I just don't agree with it. But at the end of the day, you have the right to prod an article and I have the right to deprod it if I disagree with you. We have both acted within the guidelines. The next stage is to take it to AfD if that's what you want to do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that at some point. Could I just point out to you the current big problem with sports-related copyvios? I'm not suggesting that the railway station articles are copyvios but there are people out there who will pump huge amounts of new articles in WP "just because they can" ... and that applies to railway stations as much as sport biographies. It does not indicate notability. I think I'll spend some time trawling through and go for a mass AfD, unless you can direct me to some previous discussion regarding this issue? Not all schools are notable, so why should all railway stations be so - what is inherently different? I'm confused about your logic behind all of this. Sitush (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, take a look at Churchill Machine Tool Company. It was up for AfD earlier this month, I got involved, added about 30x of content and got it to DYK with a probably GA to follow. That is surely not the attitude of a deletionist of any degree? Sitush (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I'm sure you know, time and time again on AfDs all secondary schools have been held to be notable (although it doesn't stop people trying to get them deleted). It strikes me that railway stations are just as important. I didn't say you were a deletionist; I said you were clearly more deletionist than I am. I'll happily delete articles about non-entities who have not contributed to the world in any notable way, but in my opinion deleting articles about significant places like railway stations is damaging to our goal of being a universal encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand Bascillicas

That is a very debateble claim. As the main article says these buildings can be either via the Pope OR by the design of them. Don't think super-editors such as yourself should decide on what should be in or out on a narrow basis. The list should be re-instated. Flaggs33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flags33 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No, this, as it clearly states, is a list of basilicas given that status, not a list of buildings that have "basilica" in the title. That would be utterly pointless. Since I largely created it, I know what it's for. We use lists on Wikipedia to impart specific information, not as a random collection of things that have a particular word in the title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

moved C.W.A. Scott to C. W. A. Scott over redirect) (undo)

Hi User talk:Necrothesp, While I greatly appreciate your contribution to the page that I created and have done all the research for about my Great Uncle C.W.A. Scott, I do feel that you might have put this change up for discussion on the discussion page Talk:C.W.A. Scott before actualy going ahead and making the change, the reason I say this is because I did think long and hard about whether the title of his page should be grammatically correct by today’s standards i.e. C. W. A. Scott or be as he was actually known, published and referred to in all Newspapers, newsreels and other documentation such as the vast array of advertising that he put his name C.W.A. Scott to in the 1930's while he was alive, and in fact the very reason why I have done hours and months of research on my great uncle is as well as telling his story, to keep his name alive! I would be very grateful if you would consider whether you have actually made the right decision in changing his name as you have, I do also very much appreciate that you may well have made these changes to help the artical since I have nominated it for GA status but if you check all the links refering to all the published documentation from the 1930's you will see that it is the fact that he was known in his lifetime as C.W.A. Scott, any thoughts you have on this subject would be very welcome, thanks Jimmy3d0 (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It is standard practice on Wikipedia to put spaces between full stops in article titles, as you will see if you look in the categories. People who use initials are known in many different ways, with and without full stops and spaces, frequently down to the style of the time or the publication, but it is best to be consistent in these things. There are actually spaces between the full stops in most of the contemporary sources quoted in the article! -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes you are right I was obviously too close to the project to see my error (partly because he was my relative). Can I ask you if you are involved with helping to decide if the artical is at GA standard as I am very keen for that to be put into motion, and have been improving the artical as people have advised, thanks for your help Jimmy3d0 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles Max Page

User:Duncharris, who moved the article from Max Page, is no longer active, so I guess you're the editor with the most interest in this.

It's not certain yet whether the actor will be more famous than the surgeon, though right now he is somewhat of a celebrity.

If you're not familiar with the Super Bowl ad, Max Page (actor) is the kid in the Darth Vader costume.

I would recommend moving back to Charles Max Page because people will be searching for information about the commercial.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If he was known as Max Page, then the page should not be at Charles Max Page, per WP:COMMONNAME. It could however be at Max Page (British Army officer). As to primary topic, I don't think either of them probably qualify since neither are that well-known. The actor may be more of a celebrity at the moment, but at the end of the day he is just a child actor who will quite probably be forgotten in a few years time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. I don't know anything about the other man. Though a Bing search doesn't really come up with anything for "Max Page army officer".Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He was definitely known as Max Page according to Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a book, right?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's the standard annual guide to notable people in British life. Also now available online (although only to subscribers). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The library where I am right now has Who's Who in America but the latest one is 15 years old. There is a 2009 edition of Who's Who in the South and Southwest. A larger library would probably have the one you mentioned, but I can take your word for it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that unless his role in the soap increases dramatically, we won't be hearing much about that Max. I read the columns with summaries but don't watch the show any more, and I haven't seen him mentioned. I thought I was safe until I realized another character was the one with serious health problems. I thought maybe with his experience that's why they hired him for this role. I just saw this on a Help Desk page (I enjoy the archives) but I would have never written his article had he not been on the soap.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't been forgotten yet. Max Page appeared as Little Darth Vader at the opening of a Volkswagen factory, and the commercial won an online contest Monday.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Question on military medal notability

I've had a question of notability for awhile. I did a response to yours on the [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vittorio Revetra | AfD of Vittorio Revetra]] and it looks like you are the perfect person to ask.
I've come across alot of articles of Silver Star or Distinguished Service Medal recipients and was wondering if/why they are notable. What medal and circumstances does a person become notable. Some examples are Robert J. Perry and Selmer Tilleson. Bgwhite (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• In general, we would say that winners of a country's highest award(s) or multiple lower awards are notable. So, in United States terms, winners of the Medal of Honor are notable by default. In Britain, winners of the Victoria Cross or George Cross likewise. Winners of the Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross etc (or in Britain the Distinguished Service Order, Conspicuous Gallantry Cross etc), which are second-level awards, would not be notable by default, but people who had won it twice or more probably would be. Winners of the DSM or Silver Star would certainly not be notable by default, but winners of multiple awards might be. There are no set guidelines for this, but my personal (and entirely unofficial) rule of thumb is that it would take three or more such awards to make them notable enough for a WP article. Neither Perry nor Tilleson are therefore notable in our terms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Persons convicted of fraud

Since you Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud participated in the recent CfD of Category:Persons convicted of fraud I wanted to inform you that the category was recently recreated and relisted. Here is a link to the current CfD should you wish to participate. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(Sir)? John Major in Vauxhall article.

I removed the "Sir" from John Major's name after reading WP:MoS_(biographies)#Honorific_titles on the grounds that in the media he is overwhelmingly referred to without the "Sir". My edit has been undone by an admin, who told me to read the guideline again, I have done so, but it's still unclear to me, what should be done in this particular case? Thx Grim²³★ 16:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Frankly, after much debate and reversion that section of the guideline now reads like so much gibberish. But I think that it is perfectly acceptable to retain Major's title in the article, since that is how he is now known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

George Medal recipients

Hi, I've seen you list of GM awards since WW2, do you have a list of holders of the GM & bar? Also, and this is a bit cheely, do you have a copy of Henderson's Dragons can be defeated? I've created an article for G S Sewell, the first civilian to be awarded a GM & bar but I've only got secondary references to this and I'd really like to track Henderson down to confirm it. Thanks. NtheP (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. As yet, all I have is on the list, which has been obtained from the London Gazette. I don't have a copy of the book, I'm afraid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. NtheP (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Patronymics

Re [9], I think you are talking about Royalty only. That's a vanishingly small number of Russians, and it's more confusing to include this point than to say nothing at all. I would like to delete "some Russians" from there. -- Y not? 00:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. Many of our articles on Russians are on royalty. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And many aren't -- Y not? 19:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why it says some Russians! I'm honestly not sure what your point is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Roman Catholic female orders and societies

Category:Roman Catholic female orders and societies, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Student7 (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Advice?

Hi, I've tried to maintain politeness and avoid personal attacks in the long-running and sometimes emotional schools CfD. But the proposers' failure to consult a range of affected editors is irksome and I feel its necessary to be firm in this instance as it has wide-ranging implications for hundred of articles that affect English schools, and is being watched by a number of other British-system schools for their CfDs. But we've had several examples of bad behaviour in this proposal. I'm unimpressed at the vitriolic behaviour of one of the admins at the long-running school CfD - and I note that her response to my last post (when I asked for AGF) was accusatory, misstated facts and was simply annotated contempt - can she be unaware of its possibility for adverse interpretation? Might you have any suggestions as to how this admin's behaviour can be made to be more positive in a lasting manner, given she has been admonished several times in the past for her behaviour? Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you and it's certainly not the first time I've observed her aggressive lack of appreciation of anyone else's views and her absolute conviction that she is right no matter what. However, she is also a valuable editor and I'm not sure it would be advantageous to Wikipedia to take it any further at this stage. I sincerely hope the closing admin will appreciate that this is a clear no consensus close and that threats to take such a close to review will not provoke so much vitriol. If they do then it will be more visible to other admins and hopefully steps will be taken. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Chelmno extermination camp

Is there something else I'm supposed to do with this?Hoops gza (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that's it. Now just wait seven days. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

P. J. Sebastian, Pullamkulam

I have responded to your objections. Karnan (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Page moves

It seems you agree with me here. But the Hussein page seems stuck. As you're an admin, could you make the page move please? Thanks Pass a Method talk 18:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Best to leave it for a bit longer I think. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"You are adding nothing to Wikipedia"

Would you please explain what you mean with that statement? --ZH2010 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoting moves to controversial

Hi! Is there any reason for not preserving the wikilinks in the signature here when you promoted the RM to controversial? Andrewa (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't aware I'd removed any links! If I did then it was a mistake. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Murray MacLehose, Baron MacLehose of Beoch

Hi. I shall be glad if you can join the discussion of the requested move of the article title of Murray MacLehose, of which you may be interested. --Clithering (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Balmoral High School, Belfast

Hi, I am not convinced that we need disambiguation since there is no other school with the exact title 'Balmoral High School'. The hatnote will deal with any confusion. I am inclined to move the page to Balmoral High School and putting the content of that page at Balmoral High School (disambiguation). Do you have any objection,please? TerriersFan (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan MCs

Hi, You recently reverted List of British gallantry awards for the War in Afghanistan back to my last version, following edits by 'Ed Macy', but I suspect this wasn't exactly what you wanted - I had both Macy and Rutherford in the article, since there was a reference for Macy, as well as the Gazette entry for Rutherford. If Rutherford and Macy are one and the same, then presumably we should remove Macy? Antrim Kate (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Macy and Rutherford are one and the same. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Special Constabulary

I have removed your revert which has allowed the link for the website Policespecials.com, please note this link is in breach of wiki guidelines on spam link to commercial sites, in this case to a site owned by commercial concern NSI(Online) ltd. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform. Pandaplodder (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, I did no such thing. I merely removed a hatnote that was inappropriate for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an article

It was nice to see your comments on the Qur'an article. Please enter your vote in the poll that is being conducted for a return to the long-standing spelling. Best wishes, Abdullajh (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Jane Trefusis Forbes

Hi. I just noticed you corrected my typo here. Thanks a bunch. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)