User talk:Trains in Space

Welcome!

Hello, Trains in Space, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

James William Middleton

The article on James William Middleton was merged to Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge based on a consensus reached at Talk:James William Middleton. Nothing appears to have changed in the 14 months since this consensus was reached to indicate that the situation has changed.

Since the merge was the result of a community discussion, you should raise the issue for further community discussion before undoing the merge. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to discuss what significant events Mr. Middleton has been involved in (other than the normal "family of the princess" stuff) that merit overturning community consensus to recreate this article? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you wait to see rather than just reverse. Mr Middleton is a significant public figure in Great Britain, and has been in numerous news articles on his business and association with the Royal Family. The article here has much more information than the small para in the main House of Middleton page.

Yes, the article here does have much more information than the single paragraph. But the consensus of the community was that the information at this page was not inherently notable enough for its own article. Nothing you have added has changed that. I don't see anything that you have added that should cause us to throw away the prior consensus. This appears to be a case of you not agreeing with the consensus, and so simply ignoring it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just working up the article, which is what Wikipedia is about, rather than quoting policy. Why don't you let the article develop some more before deciding that. All the Middletons have proven their notability in the year since Their Royal Highness' wedding day and now deserve their own articles. I am working at the moment on Mr Middletons and hope to make it a really good article.

I'm willing to wait a day or two to see where you go with the article. But I think you'll need something substantive to reverse the pre-existing consensus. So far, you haven't shown anything substantive, nor have you been willing to provide an answer to my question about what substantive information you have. To me, that indicates that you probably don't have anything substantive. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth- I have never mentioned the phrase "substantive" or "significant", and so I don't feel the need to address that. I do believe that the article could be expanded by adding more details of Mr Middleton's life, personal relationships, business life and other areas (such as Titles and Arms that other royal biographies have). This would complement the existing information lost in the merge.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I have mentioned that, in the absence of substantive changes to the situation, there does not appear to be any reason to reverse community consensus. Substantive is my word; I never implied it was yours. However, you have implied that there is new information that would change community consensus, and I have asked you what that information is, but you have not provided any insights. As for adding material "that other royal biographies have", please keep in mind that Mr. Middleton is not a member of the British Royal Family or the British Nobility. The Middletons are commoners (wealthy commoners, perhaps, but commoners all the same, which was one of the main reasons that Kate's engagement to Will was such an eyebrow-raiser in the first place) and hold no title. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention anything about "new information", that would imply original research. I merely stated his ongoing notability one year after the wedding of Their Royal Highness The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge which gained him his original notability. There are various new pieces of article info that can be added as I outlined in my previous response. Why are you being so negative about a user expanding on an article. There is nothing to stop this being done more than a year after a merge decision was made, rightly or wrongly. Time has changed and the circumstances can be revisited and if editors wish to spend time expanding rather than deleting then that should be encouraged. Also I did not say he was a member of the British Royal Family, I am well aware of his rank and status. However, he is a member of a rising and power House, and it is common for there to be articles about such persons. Looking at for example Charles Howard, a brother of Catherine Howard- who has a small bio on the site (much smaller and less sourced than Mr Middleton's article).

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Trains in Space, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Moswento ^talky 20:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Trains in Space. You have new messages at Talk:James William Middleton.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood

In undoing the change by Miesianiacal (talk · contribs), you have misunderstood his (and my original) point. There was already a complete discussion regarding the merger of James William Middleton to Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Consensus had already been reached. Your action in recreating the page broke that consensus. And while it is true that consensus may change, that can only be determined by beginning a new discussion. You took your action with no discussion. Had the article been deleted by an AFD discussion, your recreation would have been considered vandalism. I am in concurrence with Mieseniacal, and Bob Castle (talk · contribs) (who also weighed in on the topic). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a point in time, things have changed since one year and that is why the article was expanded (not recreated). The article is still being worked on and other users have agreed that it should be kept as a single article. Trains in Space (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that things have changed, but you now have at leas three separate editors who disagree with you. Since consensus has already been reached, seek new consensus before going against the old. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!

That's not the point, you are obviously getting your friends to come along and agree with you, people who have never even been involved in the article. Why bother wasting time to create something when people like you, interested only in policy and reverting people are around. Fucking waste of time Wikipedia as usual.

I have not "gotten my friends involved". I have not recruited any of these editors to come and look at this issue. You can check my edit history to verify that I have never had any interaction with the other editors involved in the article. As for "creating something new", your version is almost identical to the version that existed prior to the original merge discussion, except that you copied the "ancestry" section verbatim from the "Family of Catherine..." article. You really haven't created anything new at all. As for Wikipedia policies, they exist for a reason, and they exist because the community has chosen for them to exist. If you are not happy with them, you are free to open a discussion about changing them, but until you manage to get that done, you must abide by the policies that already exist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Advice

I wanted to pass along some friendly advice on how you might go about recreating the James William Middleton page without all the wikidrama. I would suggest creating a page as a subpage of your own user page (ex. User:Trains in Space/James William Middleton). By doing that, you will be able to work on expanding James' article without pressure or time constraints from other users, because the article will be in the userspace instead of the mainspace (there's much stricter rules about the mainspace than the userspace). Once your modified article is complete, you can post on the James William Middleton talk page and attempt to create new consensus based on the changed article you created. That will go a long way in resolving some of the conflicts you are currently facing with this article. Hope this helps! --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]