User talk:Verbcatcher/Archive 2016

Wandlebury Hill Fort

Just to let you know that I agree wholly about not tampering with text (however bad) where it is a direct quotation. In this instance, I debated with myself whether or not to make my alteration, but decided it would be in order as the text in the reference source is merely a translation of the true underlying source, which is in Latin; hence I saw my change as being a difference of translation rather than interference with a source quotation. However, I accept you can argue it either way and I'm not too fussed one way or the other. Meantime, I have been trying to lay my hands on the Latin text, but it seems too obscure to be readily available online, and the asking price for it in book form is extortionate! The Sage of Stamford (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Sage of Stamford, I take your point about it being a translation. However, I feel that "of which" reads better, albeit maybe a little old-fashioned. There is also a potential issue of the copyright status of the translation. If you can get the original Latin text and you have the necessary skills then a fresh translation would be good. A list of available editions is here, which leads here and here. This pdf file has what appears to be an extended extract of Otia Imperialia (page 419, pdf page 460). However, it's not searchable, and I haven't found the paragraph we need. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

...for all your cleanups on Rosalind Franklin. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coleg Trefeca

Hello, Thank you for identifying this problem but after 7 years I would not remember the reason for the edit. This editor abandoned the name "Felix Folio Secundus" a while ago and adopted his present name. It would not be directly copied from the website to which you refer; I think "text from other article" would mean that it had been created on Wikipedia by an earlier editor but that I decided to move it into this article (Trefeca) leaving a redirect behind.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnsoniensis, thanks for replying. The same text is in Calvinistic Methodists, so you probably copied it from there. When you copy between articles you should specify the source article in the edit summary, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FFS did edit the Calvinistic Methodists article:see here; whether it did come from there I really do not know. (I do not like many other editors' habits of using uninformative abbreviations like "ce" which only insiders would understand.)--Johnsoniensis (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of teachers and students

The discussion in Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students also applies here. However, the case for moving the lists from this article to a separate List of faculty and alumni of the Académie de la Grande Chaumière is less strong, because these lists are shorter and the rest of this article is smaller. However, we should not include any names that are red-linked and unreferenced. I propose to delete these names from the article, and move them to this talk page. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obsession? Repeat Obsession, "should! would !" By the way who is this we?;) --DDupard (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are the community of editors of English Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do show that you are an editor who can contribute positively --DDupard (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my record of creating new articles and adding new material to others. Removing unreliable information is also a positive contribution. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roles limited to that of gate keepers, fact checkers or "guidelines" pushers are indeed limited in that they are missing the essence of the project--DDupard (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not try to insult me. What justification do you have for characterising me as a gate keeper, a fact checker or a "guidelines" pusher? Most of my contributions are adding new, properly-sourced material. As with many editors I also keep an eye on a selection of articles, and when I see something undesirable in one of them I try to resolve it. Adding unsourced material is missing the essence of the project. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add references to a few articles, particularly: École Gratuite de Dessin--DDupard (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And citations to section alumni Howardian High School and section students William Grant Murray--DDupard (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

École Gratuite de Dessin is a stub, if I had usable references I would add them. I will comment on your merge proposal. I have commented on your other requests in Talk:Howardian High School#William Grant Murray and Howardian High School. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A stub still has to contain minimal source(s)--DDupard (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments in Talk:École Gratuite de Dessin#Merge. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources please? Or is it original/personal research?--DDupard (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May be you want to decipher, translate, and write something with this [1] or that [2] and then possibly, thank me--DDupard (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those appear to be good sources, thank you. However, my French is not adequate to extract much useful information. I indicated the source of my material in my check-in comment on 22 May 2014: Stub based on École nationale supérieure des arts décoratifs. I should probably have added a tag to the talk page to indicate this. Unfortunately there are no citations in École nationale supérieure des arts décoratifs, so I can't cite them here. Please redirect your fire on that article, you appear to be waging a vendetta on articles with which I have been involved. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charming!--DDupard (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There cannot be a double standard, remember; If you tag an article for lack of sources, others can do it as well.--DDupard (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not objecting to your tag of École Gratuite de Dessin. However, your criteria for tagging should not include the identity of previous editors of the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any source? Guidelines apply to all articles --DDupard (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Princes of Wales

Hi, Verbcatcher. I'm a little confused by your recent edit with the accompanying edit summary which seems to indicate that the category Category:Princes of Wales is a subcategory of Category:Princes of the United Kingdom. Neither of those two categories should be a subcategory of the other: Not all Princes of the United Kingdom are Princes of Wales; not all Princes of Wales have been Princes of the United Kingdom. Can you help me understand what's going on? - Nunh-huh 05:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nunh-huh. Category:Princes of Wales is a subcategory of Category:Princes of the United Kingdom. My understanding is that an article should not be a member of a category and of one of its parent categories, and that the categories should be organised accordingly. I agree with your point, some Princes of Wales lived before the United Kingdom was established. On the same basis, Category:Princes of Wales should also be removed from the following categories: Princes of England, Princes of Great Britain, English royal titles and Heirs apparent. Feel free to make these changes yourself. However, I'm not 100% confident of the rules here, and I want to look at the guidelines again before I change this. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The category system here is to me a confusing mess, so I am not the person to straighten it out. But this particular issue may be fixable. I encourage you to try. Like you, I think the rules are rather complicated, and I'm also not convinced that categorization is useful as we've implemented it. It should be a system of boolean categories that you could search in combinations, instead of a nested collection of categories (so you have to imagine what category a French-born naturalized American female actor who died in 1913 of tuberculosis might belong in.) - Nunh-huh 02:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nunh-huh, my interpretation is that Category:Princes of Wales is for Princes of Wales from the English, British and United Kingdom royal family. Category:Welsh princes is for Welsh princes before the Statute of Rhuddlan (1384). I have edited the category descriptions to clarify this. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making sense of it! - Nunh-huh 17:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italic Ship Names

Hiya, I'm a little confused by this edit, especially as the guideline you refer to says the complete opposite of what you claim. Ship names should be italicised, just as the guideline says: "Italics should be used for the following types of names and titles, or abbreviations thereof:... Ships, with ship prefixes, classification symbols, pennant numbers, and types in normal font: USS Baltimore (CA-68)." Note that it says prefixes pennant numbers and types are in normal font and, in the example, the ship name is italicised. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I misunderstood this phrase in the guidelines: "Ships, with ship prefixes, classification symbols, pennant numbers, and types in normal font". I have self-reverted.

I looked into this when "Warrior's" struck me as ugly (with the s not in italics), it seems more natural to italicise the whole word: "Warrior's". I couldn't find any guidance on this. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and good catch on the rename date. I do have to agree on the pluralisation/italic thing, it does look quite odd. But it does seem to be the correct standard, not just on wiki, but in the wider world. I work in maritime, and I still think it looks strange! Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for absence..

Hi, just to apologise for not responding at Talk:Académie de la Grande Chaumière, but travel commitments for work over the last two weeks meant I have had limited time for Wikipedia, and indeed for several days little net access. For what it's worth I think you have done the right thing with your recent edits on that article and obviously done the research required to back up the edits. Thanks for the good work.14GTR (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Please continue to watch the page. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Verbcatcher. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RCAHMW

Dear Verbcatcher, thank you for making me aware of this! Following a recent talk by the Wikimedian in Residence for National Library of Wales, I thought it was time to update the Commission's page and on doing so noticed a multitude of different spelling for the Commission within Wikipedia. I am not an expert on the way Wikipedia works, so, sorry for any misconceptions on what I was trying to do. Best regards, Charles.rcahmw (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on List of Largest Mosque

Hey Verbcatcher, for your kind information, I was not threatening someone. I am just trying to make point that Al-Alsa is not considered as mosque in the country where it is situated. And portraying the worshipping place of Ahmeddiya community as mosque considered as blasphemy in the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Wikipedia is the first information source, so incorrect information may lead to confusion. Hope you get my point. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakarmy4923 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]