This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Removed these from the page as they are not considered reliable enough. They do however provide some interesting information.--
Jackyd101 (
talk) 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
See if something can be done about all the red links. Overall, a good article. --
Secisek (
talk) 06:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Virtually all the red links are for warships and MPs who are automatically notable, so the redlinks will eventually change to blue. Of course as WP:Anglicanism members, it's probably up to us to work out if the church is sufficiently notable... Incidentally, whilst it is indeed frowened upon to use flags for places of birth and death (at least partly because, there are questions of self-identification and historical accuracy) there does seem to be a consensus to use them for Allegiance and Branch as these are well-defined matters of fact.
David Underdown (
talk) 08:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, I did my part. The chuch article is stubbed in. --
Secisek (
talk) 08:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Removed these from the page as they are not considered reliable enough. They do however provide some interesting information.--
Jackyd101 (
talk) 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
See if something can be done about all the red links. Overall, a good article. --
Secisek (
talk) 06:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Virtually all the red links are for warships and MPs who are automatically notable, so the redlinks will eventually change to blue. Of course as WP:Anglicanism members, it's probably up to us to work out if the church is sufficiently notable... Incidentally, whilst it is indeed frowened upon to use flags for places of birth and death (at least partly because, there are questions of self-identification and historical accuracy) there does seem to be a consensus to use them for Allegiance and Branch as these are well-defined matters of fact.
David Underdown (
talk) 08:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, I did my part. The chuch article is stubbed in. --
Secisek (
talk) 08:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)reply