|
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
For all your useful but unseen and unglamorous work in sorting out correct article titles using WP:BISHOP and, what is more, cleaning up afterwards. Bencherlite Talk 15:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC) |
Although why I, as an ex-Tindal man, should be nice to an ex-Holland man is completely beyond me... Bencherlite Talk 15:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Hope all is well. I've noticed you have been moving a lot of pages citing WP:BISHOP. I also noticed a lot of the moves don't actually seem to be based on this page. Eanbald II to Eanbald (floruit 798), Wilfrid to Wilfrid (7th century bishop) for instance; in the latter case there should be an adjectival "-" ("8th-century bishop", NOT "8th century bishop") anyway. Not sure eliminating numerals really serves us well for bishops in the pre-surname era, as they are often in common use and act as better natural disambiguators than for instance "8th-century bishop" does. I appreciate WP:BISHOP has nothing to say on this yet. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 17:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Disambiguator's Barnstar | |
Thanks for all your hard work on disambiguation pages, it's appreciated. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 20:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
DBD - While I appreciate the value of fixing the redirects to articles like Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II, you seem to be, in the process of doing so, removing the title "Queen" from all instances where it appears before the name "Elizabeth II". Note at Parliament Hill, you did so twice: [1] [2]. Though the deletion was unwarranted in both cases, the first I could kind of understand, given that "Queen" was part of and disappeared along with the piped link. But, in the second occurrence, there were no links to fix and the word was simply deleted. I don't know anything about WP:AWB, but I imagine the problem lies with its use...? -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I see you're still at it. Is it that you can't stop? Or are you just choosing not to? -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the revert by Calendarwatcher (who is apparently operated by more than one other editors but no one has got to the bottom of it). In this case, CW was right to revert. Please note that spaced en, not em, dashes should be used as interruptors.
Have you tried installing the script by GregU, which fixes all range and interruptor en dashes (i.e., especially those that are rendered as hyphens)? Tony (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Oi, could you two try arguing elsewhere than my talk page please? Cheers. D B D 23:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a bit puzzled as to why you have deleted all those non-breaking spaces from 31 and 33 Dee Banks, Chester and 2–18 St Werburgh Street, Chester; and you do not seem to have replaced them with hard spaces in any other way. According to the MoS here, a non-breaking space should be inserted "between the date number and month name", "after the number in a numbered address ", and "before Roman numerals". You seem to have removed them in all these instances. Perhaps I am missing something, but my understanding is that non-breaking spaces should be used "to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line", and gives these as examples. Can you explain please (you can reply here as I shall be watching). Thanks. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 17:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I see you too have incurred the displeasure of Anglicanus. Welcome to the club! Bashereyre ( talk) 22:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course it's the wrong term but it's what the template uses. See the Prince of Wales, Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of York, etc. articles. I'll revert if that's OK?
James F. (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello there, as you're clearly interested in the subject area, I'm inviting your participation in a discussion of recent edits to articles about British royalty at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty. Best regards. Rubywine ( talk) 18:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I see you've had a busy day moving. I don't have an opinion on the capital thing, but I really hope it sticks now as it is a fairly tedious problem. :) Do note that consensus was never reached to apply the standard to abbots and priors ... and there is good reason not to. Do note disambiguation. Ailin is not the only Ailin (e.g. Ailín I and Ailín II); Enguerrand of Glasgow is not the only bishop with that name (though none I can see with many articles, article creation is likely and moving creates unnecessary work: fr:Enguerrand_de_Metz), same with Jocelin. I'll make the appropriate fixes. Thanks for updating the templates btw. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 01:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking at some of the moves you have made, as above, which you justify by reference to WP:NCWC. Could you point out where in WP:NCWC this recommendation is made? Hohenloh + 02:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The Wikipedia Birthday Committee wishes you a very happy birthday! Enjoy your special day. |
SwisterTwister ( talk) 05:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles on Royal peers who are/were princes should be at "Prince Name, Rank of Title" (i.e. no ordinal). Examples: Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn. refers to princes rather than princesses plus the wording in the note rather indicates it is refering to royal dukes/royal peerages which the fife dukedom isnt. that was my reading of it but if i am incorrect could you ellaborate? Nirame ( talk) 20:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I wrote most of the Wikipedia article on the late Archbishop McQuaid. You changed his name to "John McQuaid". Nobody in Ireland ever knew him by this name. He was "John Charles McQuaid" "John Charles" or "Archbishop McQuaid" NEVER "John McQuaid". Apparantly I can't change titles but the current one is misleading. Kilbarry1 ( talk) 21:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
See the entry for the late Archbishop in the Dublin Archdiocese website http://www.dublindiocese.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=600&Itemid=292 Also the website of the Irish Hierarchy http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bmcqu.html Also the title of the extremely hostile biography by John Cooney is "John Charles McQuaid: Ruler of Catholic Ireland" - see numerous references via Google to this book including http://www.obrien.ie/book464.cfm Kilbarry1 ( talk) 17:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I've moved Power Trench back to Power Le Poer Trench since his surname is "Le Poer Trench" - see "Peers surname" section of Whitakers Almanack. London: A. & C. Black. 2003. p. 167. ISBN 0-7136-6497-5. More recent editions will say the same thing. Scrivener-uki ( talk) 13:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining your revert of my edit to Richard Roseveare? The only thing I did was move the reference list so that it stopped throwing an error. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 19:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I have spent 20 minutes reverting changes, (and seeing which ones may remain,) you made to articles refering to the complex of mills in Ancoats. In 2008 we spent some time getting the the article title right which was not easy as the apostrophe has moved over the 230 years they have been in existence, I would have appreciated it if you had discussed your intention to to change any of this on a talk page first. I have corrected you disamb hat notes - Murrays was never a company A& G Murray however was. The coffee pot is on at my place if you want to pop over and learn something about 18 th century Manchester. Do come on round -- ClemRutter ( talk) 01:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi DBD
When realigning the article Zara Phillips with WP:MOS, I removed the honourific "Mrs" that you had, in spite of what appears to be the consensus, assigned to her. Please do not change again as we do not know what her preferred title will be - see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:VERIFY for official Wikipedia policy. Martinvl ( talk) 06:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
|
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
For all your useful but unseen and unglamorous work in sorting out correct article titles using WP:BISHOP and, what is more, cleaning up afterwards. Bencherlite Talk 15:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC) |
Although why I, as an ex-Tindal man, should be nice to an ex-Holland man is completely beyond me... Bencherlite Talk 15:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Hope all is well. I've noticed you have been moving a lot of pages citing WP:BISHOP. I also noticed a lot of the moves don't actually seem to be based on this page. Eanbald II to Eanbald (floruit 798), Wilfrid to Wilfrid (7th century bishop) for instance; in the latter case there should be an adjectival "-" ("8th-century bishop", NOT "8th century bishop") anyway. Not sure eliminating numerals really serves us well for bishops in the pre-surname era, as they are often in common use and act as better natural disambiguators than for instance "8th-century bishop" does. I appreciate WP:BISHOP has nothing to say on this yet. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 17:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Disambiguator's Barnstar | |
Thanks for all your hard work on disambiguation pages, it's appreciated. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 20:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
DBD - While I appreciate the value of fixing the redirects to articles like Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II, you seem to be, in the process of doing so, removing the title "Queen" from all instances where it appears before the name "Elizabeth II". Note at Parliament Hill, you did so twice: [1] [2]. Though the deletion was unwarranted in both cases, the first I could kind of understand, given that "Queen" was part of and disappeared along with the piped link. But, in the second occurrence, there were no links to fix and the word was simply deleted. I don't know anything about WP:AWB, but I imagine the problem lies with its use...? -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I see you're still at it. Is it that you can't stop? Or are you just choosing not to? -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the revert by Calendarwatcher (who is apparently operated by more than one other editors but no one has got to the bottom of it). In this case, CW was right to revert. Please note that spaced en, not em, dashes should be used as interruptors.
Have you tried installing the script by GregU, which fixes all range and interruptor en dashes (i.e., especially those that are rendered as hyphens)? Tony (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Oi, could you two try arguing elsewhere than my talk page please? Cheers. D B D 23:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a bit puzzled as to why you have deleted all those non-breaking spaces from 31 and 33 Dee Banks, Chester and 2–18 St Werburgh Street, Chester; and you do not seem to have replaced them with hard spaces in any other way. According to the MoS here, a non-breaking space should be inserted "between the date number and month name", "after the number in a numbered address ", and "before Roman numerals". You seem to have removed them in all these instances. Perhaps I am missing something, but my understanding is that non-breaking spaces should be used "to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line", and gives these as examples. Can you explain please (you can reply here as I shall be watching). Thanks. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 17:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I see you too have incurred the displeasure of Anglicanus. Welcome to the club! Bashereyre ( talk) 22:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course it's the wrong term but it's what the template uses. See the Prince of Wales, Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of York, etc. articles. I'll revert if that's OK?
James F. (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello there, as you're clearly interested in the subject area, I'm inviting your participation in a discussion of recent edits to articles about British royalty at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty. Best regards. Rubywine ( talk) 18:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I see you've had a busy day moving. I don't have an opinion on the capital thing, but I really hope it sticks now as it is a fairly tedious problem. :) Do note that consensus was never reached to apply the standard to abbots and priors ... and there is good reason not to. Do note disambiguation. Ailin is not the only Ailin (e.g. Ailín I and Ailín II); Enguerrand of Glasgow is not the only bishop with that name (though none I can see with many articles, article creation is likely and moving creates unnecessary work: fr:Enguerrand_de_Metz), same with Jocelin. I'll make the appropriate fixes. Thanks for updating the templates btw. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 01:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking at some of the moves you have made, as above, which you justify by reference to WP:NCWC. Could you point out where in WP:NCWC this recommendation is made? Hohenloh + 02:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The Wikipedia Birthday Committee wishes you a very happy birthday! Enjoy your special day. |
SwisterTwister ( talk) 05:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles on Royal peers who are/were princes should be at "Prince Name, Rank of Title" (i.e. no ordinal). Examples: Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn. refers to princes rather than princesses plus the wording in the note rather indicates it is refering to royal dukes/royal peerages which the fife dukedom isnt. that was my reading of it but if i am incorrect could you ellaborate? Nirame ( talk) 20:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I wrote most of the Wikipedia article on the late Archbishop McQuaid. You changed his name to "John McQuaid". Nobody in Ireland ever knew him by this name. He was "John Charles McQuaid" "John Charles" or "Archbishop McQuaid" NEVER "John McQuaid". Apparantly I can't change titles but the current one is misleading. Kilbarry1 ( talk) 21:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
See the entry for the late Archbishop in the Dublin Archdiocese website http://www.dublindiocese.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=600&Itemid=292 Also the website of the Irish Hierarchy http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bmcqu.html Also the title of the extremely hostile biography by John Cooney is "John Charles McQuaid: Ruler of Catholic Ireland" - see numerous references via Google to this book including http://www.obrien.ie/book464.cfm Kilbarry1 ( talk) 17:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I've moved Power Trench back to Power Le Poer Trench since his surname is "Le Poer Trench" - see "Peers surname" section of Whitakers Almanack. London: A. & C. Black. 2003. p. 167. ISBN 0-7136-6497-5. More recent editions will say the same thing. Scrivener-uki ( talk) 13:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining your revert of my edit to Richard Roseveare? The only thing I did was move the reference list so that it stopped throwing an error. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 19:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I have spent 20 minutes reverting changes, (and seeing which ones may remain,) you made to articles refering to the complex of mills in Ancoats. In 2008 we spent some time getting the the article title right which was not easy as the apostrophe has moved over the 230 years they have been in existence, I would have appreciated it if you had discussed your intention to to change any of this on a talk page first. I have corrected you disamb hat notes - Murrays was never a company A& G Murray however was. The coffee pot is on at my place if you want to pop over and learn something about 18 th century Manchester. Do come on round -- ClemRutter ( talk) 01:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi DBD
When realigning the article Zara Phillips with WP:MOS, I removed the honourific "Mrs" that you had, in spite of what appears to be the consensus, assigned to her. Please do not change again as we do not know what her preferred title will be - see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:VERIFY for official Wikipedia policy. Martinvl ( talk) 06:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)