This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A lot of his articles are indeed near-useless stubs. Many of his recent ones are redirectable, although I'd avoid doing so with the life peers. Essentially if an article is never likely to consist of more than "he was born, he got a title, he got married, his wife popped out some kids, he died", redirect. Ironholds ( talk) 07:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Why have you deleted the 3rd Baron Rotherwick's involvement in motorcycling? As a patron of the National Association for Bikers with a Disability he has given huge support to the charity, allowing it to hold one of its fund-raising rallies in his deer park each September for several years. It is a matter of record that his generosity has made a major contribution to the growth and success of the NABD, which is now the leading charity for disabled motorcyclists in the World. I am minded to revert your edit, but I would prefer to read your views first. Motacilla ( talk) 23:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for doing that. Trust me to have put the paragraph on the wrong "Baron Rotherwick" page in the first place! If you're interested in aristocracy, please could you check an article I've just written on the village of Chesterton, Oxfordshire? I've included a paragraph about the history of the overlordship of the manor, but I found it hard to distil the essential details from the Victoria County History and match them to all the articles about past barons, earls and dukes on Wikipedia. If I've made any mistakes I would be grateful if someone would spot them and put me right. Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 09:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I see you are renaming and retitling a lot of articles. As there are no edit summaries its difficult to see why. Is there a new policy? Could you explain the advantage? Victuallers ( talk) 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tryde, I'm wondering why you re-directed 10 articles yesterday, saying that they are non-notable. Has there been a discussion on this? I looked at two articles, Ceawlin Thynn, Viscount Weymouth and William Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock, and found that multiple pages link to them. Please explain, :-) Maedin\ talk 08:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I can understand why the first one caused problems, he seems notable enough in his own right. Tennyson should probably be kept, Spenser is worthy of further investigation, Dángen and Tolemach need further investigation, Macpherson is certainly notable, as is Bathurst (a bencher at Lincoln's Inn? Probably quite successful as a barrister in that case) and Brougham is probably worth investigating. The rest can go hang. Ironholds ( talk) 09:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tryde, I'm currently writing an article about Henry Unwin Addington and have found in this connection an inconsistency, of which I hope you can help me with. Dod's Peerage lists Addington as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1842 to 1854, an appointment Haydn's List of Dignities endorses. The article Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Wikipedia, which you had heavily expanded with dates and succession back in 2007, however misses Addington as well as others mentioned at Haydn's List. Futhermore Haydn writes of two simultaneous serving under-secretaries in the Foreign Office (at least until 1851), while the list you had compiled indicates only one such position. So may I ask what your source was for this and whether it could be possible that this source was incomplete or that you had misinterpreted it? Best wishes
Hi, would it bother you to remove the images again - on one side they pretify the article/s of course, on the other side they make the article/s extremely long and especially for users with slow internet connections badly viewable (the more images, the more mass of data a browser has to load). Please consider also that the images might rather belong to the specific articles about the individual incumbents then to what should initially only be a overview of them. Greetings
Thanks for the advice Tryde. Obviously I am not very wiki savy. Should I apologize on that page or no? Again thanks for pointing it out to me. Daytrivia ( talk) 00:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tryde, may I inform you, that a template for links to the London (Belfast and Edinburgh) Gazette exists - see {{ LondonGazette}}. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 18:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Tweak as you will, then, but I disagree completely with the infobox point on Haldane. "Lord Haldane" is the title used when referring to his actions and work as Lord Chancellor, not Viscount Haldane. Is there something MOS-y related to this that could shed light? Ironholds ( talk) 09:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tryde. Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for the consideration. I've made a start at User:Craigy144/ECMS and will what work on it more when I get a chance. Feel free to edit that page too. Regards, Craigy ( talk) 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing the pic! Wwwhatsup ( talk) 06:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Ta a bunch - I had the TFA a few days ago, which was fun :). As before, no problem - feel free to send me similar cases in future. Me and Moonriddengirl just helped deal with a lot of FFs problematic editing (direct copyvios from the ODNB are not taken well) so this is just covering old ground for me. Indeed, I redirected a few similar articles on the same grounds. It will be interesting when the new Constitutional Amendment Act (or whatever they're calling it) comes in, since such people will no longer be covered by WP:POLITICIAN (joy). Frederick Ponsonby, Viscount Duncannon can be redirected (courtesy title, no achievements), Sir Christopher Nugent, 6th Baronet too (I note you've already done that). Assuming Charles Devereux, 19th Viscount Hereford isn't a member of the Lords as a result of his title, feel free to whack that one too. Ironholds ( talk) 11:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I notice in several of the articles on Captains of the Gentlemen at Arms and Yeomen of the Guard you've described these offices' holders as respectively Government Chief Whips and Deputy Chief Whips in the House of Lords. The Lords' Government Chief Whip has only regularly captained the Gentlemen at Arms since 1945, and the Deputy Chief Whip the Yeomen of the Guard from that date or later - Lord Templemore was Government Chief Whip and Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard 1940-45. (See David Butler and Gareth Butler, Twentieth Century British Political Facts'.) Opera hat ( talk) 20:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what you said in the message you sent me about renaming the article and category to Leveson-Gower family I only stumbled on this category by chance and realised a lot of it was nonsense Ive noticed also a lot of Jansma's contributions in other categories have been reverted or deleted. Penrithguy ( talk) 16:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The third name of the 4th Bart was Dunstan per thepeerage.com and Dundas per leighrayment.com and wiki. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Today, for example, you redirected ten stubs for Earls of Kildare to Earl of Kildare, stating in your summaries that they were all non notable. These included Thomas FitzGerald, 7th Earl of Kildare, whom you apparently consider to be a non-notable Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and George FitzGerald, 16th Earl of Kildare, who has articles in the Dictionary of National Biography and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
You then proceeded to redirect Earl of Kildare to Duke of Leinster.
In most cases, you do not merge the contents of the redirected pages, which surely would be the outcome if you were to propose a merger by tagging with {{merge}}.
Would you please explain your authority for determining that stubs should be deleted by being turned into redirects to more general pages? For each page redirected in the past week, would you please say what research you did to establish "non notability" and also why you consider that you do not need to follow normal procedures? Moonraker2 ( talk) 21:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A lot of his articles are indeed near-useless stubs. Many of his recent ones are redirectable, although I'd avoid doing so with the life peers. Essentially if an article is never likely to consist of more than "he was born, he got a title, he got married, his wife popped out some kids, he died", redirect. Ironholds ( talk) 07:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Why have you deleted the 3rd Baron Rotherwick's involvement in motorcycling? As a patron of the National Association for Bikers with a Disability he has given huge support to the charity, allowing it to hold one of its fund-raising rallies in his deer park each September for several years. It is a matter of record that his generosity has made a major contribution to the growth and success of the NABD, which is now the leading charity for disabled motorcyclists in the World. I am minded to revert your edit, but I would prefer to read your views first. Motacilla ( talk) 23:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for doing that. Trust me to have put the paragraph on the wrong "Baron Rotherwick" page in the first place! If you're interested in aristocracy, please could you check an article I've just written on the village of Chesterton, Oxfordshire? I've included a paragraph about the history of the overlordship of the manor, but I found it hard to distil the essential details from the Victoria County History and match them to all the articles about past barons, earls and dukes on Wikipedia. If I've made any mistakes I would be grateful if someone would spot them and put me right. Best wishes, Motacilla ( talk) 09:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I see you are renaming and retitling a lot of articles. As there are no edit summaries its difficult to see why. Is there a new policy? Could you explain the advantage? Victuallers ( talk) 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tryde, I'm wondering why you re-directed 10 articles yesterday, saying that they are non-notable. Has there been a discussion on this? I looked at two articles, Ceawlin Thynn, Viscount Weymouth and William Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock, and found that multiple pages link to them. Please explain, :-) Maedin\ talk 08:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I can understand why the first one caused problems, he seems notable enough in his own right. Tennyson should probably be kept, Spenser is worthy of further investigation, Dángen and Tolemach need further investigation, Macpherson is certainly notable, as is Bathurst (a bencher at Lincoln's Inn? Probably quite successful as a barrister in that case) and Brougham is probably worth investigating. The rest can go hang. Ironholds ( talk) 09:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tryde, I'm currently writing an article about Henry Unwin Addington and have found in this connection an inconsistency, of which I hope you can help me with. Dod's Peerage lists Addington as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1842 to 1854, an appointment Haydn's List of Dignities endorses. The article Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Wikipedia, which you had heavily expanded with dates and succession back in 2007, however misses Addington as well as others mentioned at Haydn's List. Futhermore Haydn writes of two simultaneous serving under-secretaries in the Foreign Office (at least until 1851), while the list you had compiled indicates only one such position. So may I ask what your source was for this and whether it could be possible that this source was incomplete or that you had misinterpreted it? Best wishes
Hi, would it bother you to remove the images again - on one side they pretify the article/s of course, on the other side they make the article/s extremely long and especially for users with slow internet connections badly viewable (the more images, the more mass of data a browser has to load). Please consider also that the images might rather belong to the specific articles about the individual incumbents then to what should initially only be a overview of them. Greetings
Thanks for the advice Tryde. Obviously I am not very wiki savy. Should I apologize on that page or no? Again thanks for pointing it out to me. Daytrivia ( talk) 00:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tryde, may I inform you, that a template for links to the London (Belfast and Edinburgh) Gazette exists - see {{ LondonGazette}}. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 18:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Tweak as you will, then, but I disagree completely with the infobox point on Haldane. "Lord Haldane" is the title used when referring to his actions and work as Lord Chancellor, not Viscount Haldane. Is there something MOS-y related to this that could shed light? Ironholds ( talk) 09:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tryde. Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for the consideration. I've made a start at User:Craigy144/ECMS and will what work on it more when I get a chance. Feel free to edit that page too. Regards, Craigy ( talk) 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing the pic! Wwwhatsup ( talk) 06:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Ta a bunch - I had the TFA a few days ago, which was fun :). As before, no problem - feel free to send me similar cases in future. Me and Moonriddengirl just helped deal with a lot of FFs problematic editing (direct copyvios from the ODNB are not taken well) so this is just covering old ground for me. Indeed, I redirected a few similar articles on the same grounds. It will be interesting when the new Constitutional Amendment Act (or whatever they're calling it) comes in, since such people will no longer be covered by WP:POLITICIAN (joy). Frederick Ponsonby, Viscount Duncannon can be redirected (courtesy title, no achievements), Sir Christopher Nugent, 6th Baronet too (I note you've already done that). Assuming Charles Devereux, 19th Viscount Hereford isn't a member of the Lords as a result of his title, feel free to whack that one too. Ironholds ( talk) 11:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I notice in several of the articles on Captains of the Gentlemen at Arms and Yeomen of the Guard you've described these offices' holders as respectively Government Chief Whips and Deputy Chief Whips in the House of Lords. The Lords' Government Chief Whip has only regularly captained the Gentlemen at Arms since 1945, and the Deputy Chief Whip the Yeomen of the Guard from that date or later - Lord Templemore was Government Chief Whip and Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard 1940-45. (See David Butler and Gareth Butler, Twentieth Century British Political Facts'.) Opera hat ( talk) 20:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what you said in the message you sent me about renaming the article and category to Leveson-Gower family I only stumbled on this category by chance and realised a lot of it was nonsense Ive noticed also a lot of Jansma's contributions in other categories have been reverted or deleted. Penrithguy ( talk) 16:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The third name of the 4th Bart was Dunstan per thepeerage.com and Dundas per leighrayment.com and wiki. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Today, for example, you redirected ten stubs for Earls of Kildare to Earl of Kildare, stating in your summaries that they were all non notable. These included Thomas FitzGerald, 7th Earl of Kildare, whom you apparently consider to be a non-notable Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and George FitzGerald, 16th Earl of Kildare, who has articles in the Dictionary of National Biography and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
You then proceeded to redirect Earl of Kildare to Duke of Leinster.
In most cases, you do not merge the contents of the redirected pages, which surely would be the outcome if you were to propose a merger by tagging with {{merge}}.
Would you please explain your authority for determining that stubs should be deleted by being turned into redirects to more general pages? For each page redirected in the past week, would you please say what research you did to establish "non notability" and also why you consider that you do not need to follow normal procedures? Moonraker2 ( talk) 21:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |