|
- Note: if you leave a new message for me on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.
If you are replying to an existing message, please remember to:
- sign your comments, by placing ~~~~ at the end of the comments (see WP:SIG)
- indent your comment by placing a colon before the start of the first line (add an extra colon if you are relying to a reply)
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to my request for adminship in May 2006. I am delighted that it was successful, and I now have administrator powers on Wikipedia. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance.
I regard admin powers as a privelige to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to .
If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why ... and I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.
John Belcher
Very interested in the page about my father, John Belcher, which I thought was fair. I was going to edit a small detail ie it was a cigarette case not a gold watch but that seems picky! I would also like to add a small section of my father's resignation speech to the House and maybe I will. The truth is that my father did nothing wrong at all but I agree that the tribunal did find some influence used in return for some hospitality and, therefore, I can't change that. He was a man of great courage and dignity which, in fact, Clem Attlee acknowledged in Parliament and this tribunal broke his heart. He never recovered his health, dying at the early age of 59, and my mother who had been put under enormous strain throughout the proceedings, suffered a series of nervous breakdowns for the rest of her life. A sad ending to what had been a dream for both of them ie a Labour government addressing the needs of all the people not the few.
I'm not a computer expert so don't really understand how all this works but I hope you'll see this. Perhaps you can imagine my surprise when my son drew my attention to the page?
More MPs
I don't know whether these recently-added chaps have been brought to your attention - Cecil Henry Wilson, Thomas Worrall Casey, Joseph Pointer, Charles Edward Howard Vincent, J. Batty Langley, William Crawford Anderson -- roundhouse 12:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! I'm trying to finish off a huge batch I am working on at the moment, and then I'll get back to these in the next few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Note to self: don't forget these! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I could be insulted but will just say "point taken", though you should know how not to make a point. —Dgiest c 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I do know WP:POINT, but hoped that since this was done in user space in these circumstances my offence would be counted as a minor one. (As you have probabbly guessed, I don't find your name funny, but if I did, how could we decide who was right?) Anyway, glad to see you reverted my tagging of your user page.
- BTW did you see my suggestion about listification? In penance for my point-making, I have created the list for you at User:Dgies/Humorously named people; if you don't want it, I can delete it for you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. —Dgiest c 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
NRC Regions
Thanks for adding your opinion to the discussion of NRC Regions. I feel like I'm talking too much there, and I respect your opinion from watching them at CfD. Is 70 articles (upmerge the 4 regions) too many for the category? When I suggested breaking it back out by state I was thinking of breaking out only the states with a reasonable number (3-5?) and leaving others in the parent category (as I did with Category:Coal-fired power stations). At work we have a phrase for (software) code that needs to be cleaned up, 'it stinks'. I'm starting to feel that the NRC regional divisions stink. I'm torn between changing my proposal and throwing the discussion into 'no consensus' land and leaving it alone and ending up with longer names for the same smelly categories. Any thoughts/suggestions? ~ BigrTex 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the slow reply, and for misunderstanding your suggestion: I thought you meant place all in states categories, not just those where numbers justify it. But I'm still not sure that you will get any useful categories that way: the most nuclear-generator-populated state is Illinois, with six plants, and the next is Pennsylvania with five (there several with four), and all of hose are too small for my liking.
- The more I look at the possible NRC names, the less I like any of them, but that ugly subdivision does have some use and it does divide the list a bit.
- However, I still think that the best idea is to start by creating power station categories for every state, and then see if those need subdivision by type. Hope this helps!--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- The change is made and I like getting rid of titles like 'NRC Region 1' that provided no information. The way it was closed sounded encouraging for more work. I'd thought that I might go look at the breakdown by state sometime this weekend, but based on your research I agree that breaking them down by state wouldn't be helpful.
- The biggest problem that I see with the region breakdown is it is difficult for laypeople to put articles in the proper categories. I found an image at nrc.gov that I'm going to upload and put on the main page that will help with the subcategorizing.
- It would probably be possible, since the regions break on state boundaries to create the state categories (as needed) within the region categories. At a later point we could decide whether to remove the regions as a middle layer. I'm not going to do that now.
- I will also look into whether it makes sense to create power station categories for some/all of the states and start that work.
- Thanks for your response/support/suggestions. ~ BigrTex 18:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You added Messrs Davies and Pearson to this page as elected in the 1906 General Election. In fact they were elected at bye-elections later in the year, Pearson at a contested election on 6 April for Eye, and Davies elected unopposed on 5 Jun for Eifion. I've added the names of their predecessors--George Burgess 20:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I usually check more carefully, and should have checked those. Thanks for the correction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Persondata display / Harold Caccia
Generally I must say that I don't like the Persondata. In my opinion it is completely unnecessary, since anonymous and new registered users know nothing about it, while more experienced users don't need it anymore. In addition, the respective data are mostly in the opening of an article, so in these cases the Persondata is only a repetition (if there is an infobox in the article, we still have a copy more). In any case only few people use it, I think, however for these your work will be very sensible and usefull. Perhaps you should mention it on Wikipedia talk:Persondata.
The template for civil service positions is {{s-gov}}. In Germany such offices are political appointments, so unfortunately I have not taken care that this is different in the United Kingdom. Thanks for the note, I will correct it. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 19:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC) ~~
Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South
I've been giving some thought to these bishops. It seems hopeless to try to lever all these 'UM' people into a single coherent scheme whereas to start with constituents and move up looks feasible.
We have Category:Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church and Category:Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (the 2nd a split from the first) for instance.
I thought (cf UK MPs) that it would clarify matters if we called them Category:Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church 1784-1939 and Category:Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South 1844-1939 (if this is correct, of course).
- For what its worth, the M.E.Church, South did not in fact organize until 1845. Some Bishops went with it (from the M.E. Church), but it did not elect its own (new) Bishops until 1846. Pastorwayne 14:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your view is that someone pre-1968 shouldn't have UM anywhere in the cats at the bottom. So someone who was a Bishop of X just goes into cat Bishops of X xxxx-yyyy, in an obvious fashion.
- Except when their episcopacy overlaped (i.e., began in the M.E. Church and continued into the Methodist, and possible U.M., too) Pastorwayne 14:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- because most Methodist Bishops are/were elected for life. Pastorwayne 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
(I was not thinking of subcats, but subcats of Category:Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church 1784-1939 could be made using some relevant subdivisions of the era.)
Does this sound OK? If so, the UM church would be Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church 1968-? (post 1968? 1968 onwards?). (No em dashes. That was a surprising suggestion.)
(I haven't used any abbreviations, as this just seems to invite cfds.) roundhouse 23:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the lineage of The United Methodist Church generally coalesces, it makes most sense for there to be one category, "Bishops of The United Methodist Church and its predecessors". If someone wants to label each person with the contemporary denomination, so be it. The main divergence occurs with the departure of the Wesleyan Church in the early 19th century. Not sure how many bishops, if any, left the main branch at that time.
Maintaining separate categories for episcopacy of the various ancestral denominations over the years is awfully messy and of doubtful usefulness. JoelleSatz 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've now elaborated this at Category talk:Bishops of the United Methodist Church. It is quite messy. There have been strong objections to earlier incarnations mentioning UM, and there will be quite a few of these bishops. roundhouse 16:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Clergy
Hi. I have been thinking about "clergy" as a categorization. It often gets placed in occupation cats. But it really isn't an occuption. Pastor, minister, Bishop, etc. are all occupations (which are usually done by a clergy-person). But clergy is more of a status or achievement. Almost like an academic degree, though obviously not that exactly. A clergy is a person who is ordained or licensed or in another way "set-apart" for some work of ministry, etc. But "clergy" says nothing about WHAT work. It is not an occupation. It is like someone achieving a certain level of training or recognition in a profession, but not the profession itself.
I wonder if you have any thoughts about a better way to categorize clergy? I know, you don't want more categories. And maybe this is too esoteric (sp.?) for the average wikipedian. But you are wise in these ways. I'd be interested to know what you think. Thanks so much! Pastorwayne 13:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi PW, just a quick reply because I'm in the middle of a big recategorisaton of UK Parliamentary constituencies ... but my initial inclination is to think that while you have a point, it's not really one which helps us make workable categories.
- I have just looked at the OED's definition of clergy, and it offers a lot of variations, including:
- The clerical estate or order
- The clerical order; the body of men set apart by ordination for religious service in the Christian church; opposed to laity.
- The priestly order in the Jewish and other non-Christian religions.
- The clerical estate or order
- It seems to me that the second of those is how it is most widely used: "the body of men set apart by ordination for religious service". Obviously, those so set apart have a variety of functions: liturgical, pastoral, administrative, academic, educational etc. (Amongst my own relatives who were clergy, I can think people whose jobs at various times would have fitted neatly into each of those headings).
- There are other similar profesions, and maybe a good comparison would be "medical doctor". People are trained as doctors, and qalify as such; but after further training they may work as surgeons (of many difft sorts), physicians (in the UK, General practitioners), psychiatrists etc. The difference there is that extra formal training is required, whereas a clergywoman or man is usually licensed to perform most of the roles.
- It seems to me that since the average clergyperson may without further qulaification perform some or all of the roles (liturgical, pastoral, administrative, academic, educational), that what you suggest would require a whole extra dimension of categorisation for each individual ... so that as well as categorising someone as a Methodist minister, they would also be clasified as on or moe of a pastor, administrator, etc (depending on waht jobs they actually did). I'm not sure that so much detail in categories is really helpful: it seems to me that this is too much detail for the category system, and that in most cases the dedatild info will not be available from reliable sources.
- So, answering your question, yes I do think that it is too esoteric in most cases. But there are some aspects of a clergyperson's work which may merit separate classification, such as accademic work (and we already have useful categories for some of that). But labelling a clergyman as (for example) a pastor or preacher will be tautological in the vast majority of cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Category sorting of Rolf Dudley-Williams
I've reverted your edit to Sir Rolf Dudley-Williams, 1st Baronet. I wold prefer not to use the DEFAULTSORT 'magic' on this article because Dudley-Williams changed his surname in 1964. Before that his surname was Williams, and he was normally known as "Dudley Williams". It's more useful to have the articles listed under the name they used at the time, because when I am checking the membership of the MPs by Parliament categories, I use a contemporary source for the alphabetical list of the House of Commons which will, of course, use the surnames they were using at the time: it makes it difficult to have to move forward and backward to make sure the article is there. Sam Blacketer 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that! I think that in general these are difficult things to call, and the question I would usually ask is where the reader would expect to find him in a list. I'm not sore about that, but your method has the advantage of historical accuracy, so I think you're right. BTW, I have added Conservative Party to the opening para: I hate having to read down to find what party a politician was in! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, good point. I find it's normally reasonable to guess, but having recently written about a miner who became a Conservative MP, I can see that it's an advantage to say clearly. Sam Blacketer 22:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- With the newer MPs, it's not so easy. Now that the Labour benches consist of what Norman Tebbit memorably called the "lumpen polytechnic", and both major parties are incresaingly composed of professional politicians, a lot of them look rather similar. Still not many bankers on the Labour benches though ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies by year of establishment
Greetings and thanks for starting work on Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies by year of establishment. I've put a note on Category talk:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies by year of establishment and I would be grateful for your views. Greenshed 22:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Greenshed, thanks for your kind words. I have replied at Category talk:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies by year of establishment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Historic districts of Ontario
I'm not understanding your objections. All 9 districts listed in the Historic Districts of Ontario category ceased to exist by 1849, years before Ontario ever existed. They were only districts in Upper Canada, and later Canada West. Can you explain? I thought this was a pretty straight-forward clean-up. Nfitz 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was talking rubbish (hadn't checked as thoroughly as I should have). Have now changed my vote to merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Madame Expert .-) , would you please take a look on Cricklade (UK Parliament constituency), I fear the first table isn't right. Greetings and many thanks ~~ Phoe talk 08:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC) ~~
- I have finshed a lot of tweaking. What do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Very nice! How I have expected and I love it if my expectations are met! Greetings and thanks - I hope Kyrll/Cyril has passed you by well. ~~ Phoe talk 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC) ~~
I have created an article on this British MP; you may wish to add appropriate categories.--Brownlee 11:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Done! Have also corrected the 1939 ref to Birmingham Aston: he didn't win, he lost to Edward Kellett, by a margin of 5,901 votes. A few other changes too, including moving the article to Samuel Segal, Baron Segal, the usual format of article names for peers. Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Great stuff. Thanks for your help.--Brownlee 13:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Please semi protect. - Kittybrewster 17:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Done! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Pastorwayne is creating categories again
Pastorwayne is creating categories again. He is not working at the same pace as he was previously, nor is he producing categories that look like immediate categories for deletion, renaming, or merging. However, his voluntary withdrawl from category creation has not been very long. Please take action as you see appropriate. (I am also contacting Jc37.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Since you created both articles I wonder if you have any sources on Craven-Ellis's party affiliation during his time here. The Times Guide lists him as a Conservative (as does MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1935) but Craig has him down as a National Independent in his Southampton days (although a Conservative in his Barnsley days). Talk:William Craven-Ellis#Party? is probably the best place for this. Timrollpickering 15:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have replied at Talk:William Craven-Ellis#Party? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
East & West Fife
Hi Brownhairedgirl. Just a bit of into really. Both these pages have the older 'Fife West' & 'Fife East' Designator within the body of page to a large degree still, mainly in the info boxes titles but also in reference to past by-elections throughout the page. I assume you have the automated tools to deal with this. If not I'll get around to sorting sometime in the next few weeks. Thanks Galloglass 15:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad some else spotted this! A lot of the Scottish constituencies are still covered by combined articles (e.g. Aberdeenshire), and I have already separated a few (such as the Ayr constituencies), but plan to work through the rest to (hopefully) get to a situation where an constituency article only covers constituencies of the article name.
- Lucklily Fife is a more straghtforward matter of just fixing links and link titles, and I'm using a combination of AWB and manic manual editing. (If you don't already use AWB, I can thoroughly recommend it). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
s-gov template
I'd like your opinion on how this template should be filled out for the old constituencies which had multiple MPs at the same time? E.g. how should successors and predecessors work when MPs overlap? Should only the MP in question be listed with his personal succ/pre, or should both be listed? Thx Stephennt 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Does the guidance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style#Succession_boxes help answer the question? If not, please lemme known and I'll try to explain more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- An example would be helpful, e.g. do you think Pitt the Elders box for Seaford is correct (succ, pre and with are the same person).
Also, do the seaford boxes for the 2nd vis. gage look correct (2 boxes as he was elected on 2 distinct occasions)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stephennt (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
- Can you help me out by giving links to the articles you mean? Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have now looked at William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. Yes, the Seaford box is correct: see the list of MPs at Seaford (UK Parliament constituency). Hay was MP from 1734-55, so was there both before and after Pitt; Pitt was elected in 1747, replacing William Gage, and in 1754 Gage was elected to replace Pitt, so he too as both successor and predecessor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Gage's boxes are also correct: as you guessed, it's because he was elected on two difft occasions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. It might be useful to give an example like this on the guidance page. Whilst we're on the topic, how would you represent a box where an MP serves with several people during his elected period (e.g. the box for Hay would have him serving alongside Pitt, along with the 2nd Vis. Gage (twice) and Sir William Gage, Bt). Would you just list each one with the relevant dates (i.e. it just seems a bit overly complex)? Stephennt 15:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- One more - would just like your advice as to whether you'd rate the office of Gov. General (Viceroy) as a Policital or a Government Office? It seems to me it should be Political, even though it's not an elected post, as it's not really the post of a Civil Servant either.Stephennt 15:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Missionaries of sub-denominations
Have you ever read The Keys of the Kingdom by A. J. Cronin? I keep on thinking of that book in the current discussion on missionary categories. Dr. Submillimeter 17:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, I haven't read it, but Cronin has long been on my must-read-someday list, so I have just ordered it. It does look rather suitable! But actually, the thing this makes me think of is all my relatives who were missionaries. I try to stay off too much discussion with them about it, because I have a rather difft take on it all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Move ?
Should List of the Protestant Bishops of Killaloe be renamed Anglican Bishops of Killaloe ? If you think so, please would you do it. See also Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in Ireland - Kittybrewster 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have just moved it to List of Anglican Bishops of Killaloe, since it is a list. If it ever morphs into an article more descriptive of the job, I suggest it should then be moved to Anglican Bishops of Killaloe
- .... but I wonder now whether the best term to use for all thse articles is "Anglican" or "Church of Ireland"? See for example Bishop of Clogher (Church of Ireland).
- I am inclined to think that "Church of Ireland" is more common usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- No opinion. - Kittybrewster 18:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Renaming - John Cooper, Baron Cooper of Stockton Heath
Hi, I know nothing which speaks against it. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 20:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC) ~~
- Fair enough! THanks for the reply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
James Stansfeld
Can we pls move James Stansfield to James Stansfeld and delete James Stansfield? Not sure why Stansfeld is currently redirected to Stansfield... Thx
- done! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
missionary categories
Hello & many thanks for cleaning up all of the categories. I did not know how to do it the easy way!Brian0324 14:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it wasn't really done the easy way: I just spent a few hours edited them all manually. A bit slow, but now it's done ... so now we can make more sense of what is there as we look at restructuring them (see Category talk:Missionaries). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Missionary category questions
I asked a few questions about missionary categories at Category talk:Missionaries, but I received no response. Could you please at least make some comments? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 15:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry Dr S, I missed those. Will go here now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Here are my questions. Please respond when you can.
- Should Category:Missionaries by region of activity be deleted?
- Should Category:Christian missionaries in the Middle East be merged into Category:Christian missionaries in Asia?
- Should Category:Methodist missionaries to British North America be merged into Category:Christian missionaries in North America?
Dr. Submillimeter 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
John Hart, senior and ndash etc.
Hi, thanks for your recent edit to the above, I try to fix up dates to [dd mm yy] too if I am editing a page; I'm Australian so we use that order too. You did make a little typo, you left off the "d" in "ndash" - Do you (g)nash you teeth?? I read about using the ndash character from the insert menu below the edit box and I use that, saves typos!. I have fixed up John Hart, senior birth/death dates (after using another source to get the exact d.o.b.) to read:
- ([[25 February]] [[1809]] – [[28 January]] [[1873]])
(Note the ndash is inserted from the "Insert:" line, not typed from the keyboard.
I also used the lifetime and DEFAULTSORT templates as shown below, may be of interest to save having to specify the sort for each category:
{{lifetime|1809|1873|Hart, John}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Hart, John}}
[[Category:Premiers of South Australia]]
[[Category:Companions of the Order of St Michael and St George]]
You have to use firstname, lastname in 'lifetime'; the DEFAULTSORT won't work with it. Can save a bit of time though were multiple categories are used. ---- Diverman 20:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Diverman for fixing that typo. I usually do use DEFAULTSORT, but for some reason I don't like lifetime; maybe it's because it requires separate indexing, and one the advantages of DEFAULTSORT is that it simplifoe sindexing and reduces the chance of error, but my main objection is that it doesn't look like a category entry, which makes it less readily visible to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sir John Eardley-Wilmot, 1st Baronet
Hi, me again. I saw someone moved Sir John Eardley-Wilmot, 1st Baronet that you recently edited, to John Eardley-Wilmot, 1st Baronet, reason: No honorifics in page titles. I assume this is a valid move. Is there an automated way (or semi-automated) way to change the articles:
- John Franklin, Governors of Tasmania, History of Tasmania, Wilmot, North Warwickshire (UK Parliament constituency), Division of Wilmot, Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Australian politicians, Francis Russell Nixon, 1844 in Australia, 1845 in Australia, 1846 in Australia, John Eardley-Wilmot, 2nd Baronet
to point to the new name, John Eardley-Wilmot, 1st Baronet ? ---- Diverman 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Dierman, I'm afraid that it was a wrong move: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other_non-royal_names), baronets are an exception to the general principle of not including homorifics in article names. So I have moved both Eardley-Wilmots back again.
- In this case, the links are noiw correct again, but in general, the advice is not to bypass redirects Wikipedia:Redirect#Don.27t_fix_links_to_redirects_that_aren.27t_broken. I dotend to try to bypass redirects on biographical articles, because of the possibility of the links becoming broken as future biogs are creared, but I'm aware that this is deprecated practice.
- For repetitive tasks, though, have you tried AWB? It's great! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Service awards
In recognition of your recently-passed one-year anniversary... Herostratus 05:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Editor_-_silver_ribbon_-_2_pips.jpg)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Small_wikipedia_book.jpg)
Baron Williams
Actually it is unnecessary to disambiguate the titles, however since people might search under Lord Williams when looking for the Baron Williams of Barnburgh, I would suggest to create a disambiguation page at Lord Williams for the several life peers, with a dablink to the hereditary peerage title. I would also add a see-also-section at Baron Williams with links to the life peers. I hope this will help, greetings ~~ Phoe talk 13:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC) ~~
Hatnotes on biographical articles
I think the in-depth explanation should be on WP:HATNOTES, but at least a mention should be made on WP:D. You have explained it eloquently, so I think you should add it, or at least propose the actual wording, and I will be glad to look it over. Thanks for all your work on this. Chris the speller 22:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
NAthan Steele
Geogre's law says it's nonsense. It seems like a hoax to me, but you're rather more of a parliamentary expert. Can you check NAthan Steele (assuming that it hasn't been deleted by the time you see this). Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Angus, it is nonsense. I have tagged it with {{db-nonsense}} and left a note on the talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Mythomania
Thanks for your thoughts on the Mythomania CfD. I totally agree that it should be deleted even if it had been in the DSM. I would love to see even the category for people with clinical depression get deleted, but I think we have to wait before there will be enough support for deleting that one. Doczilla 09:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- You may be right that that it will take time, but it's great to see a start being made. These categories do not belong in an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Mental hospitals
I will take your comment about the loony bins in the spirit I am sure it was meant but could I just point out that the term bin is found unacceptable by many as it is a place that you put rubbish. Careful use of lanuguage is important, especially in Wikipedia. --Vince 09:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I quite agree that use of language is important, which is why I advocate calling a spade a spade. The reason I proposed that term in the CFD for Category:Mental hospitals is precisely for that meaning, because that is the meaning used by so many of the people who are dumped in here. It's usually people like me who haven't been locked up who object to the term, preferring various euphemisms, but the best-known use of it is probably Kate Millett's book "The Loony-Bin Trip", which is an account of her own time in "the bin". "Mental hospital" or "psychiatric hospital" are the equivalent of "correctional facility": euphemisms used by outsiders. Those on the inside can see through them, and many find the use of term 'hospital' unacceptable for those institutions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I will investigate the book. I also agree that the term hospital is loaded with preconceptions of the medical model and a word such as 'unit' would be preferable. A lot of people are quite angry about the treatment they have received and I would understand why they feel that hospitals are bins. I work as a nurse in a therapeutic community where we are trying to do things differently. I am not sure if that puts me on the outside or the inside but it does mean I have met a number of people who have been at the sharp end of mental healthcare. Hopefully some people with that experience will contribute to this debate on Wikipedia. Thanks for your interest. --Vince 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Current British MPs tempate
discussion moved to User talk:Philip Stevens#Current_British_MPs_template --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
MP
- discussion moved to User_talk:Berks105#.5B.5BMember_of_Parliament.5D.5D_.28MP.29
DYK
--Yomanganitalk 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Timothy Davies
Sorry for the interruption ;) I have many red links on my watchlist and when suddenly someone is on my watchlist who I don't know, or when I expect someone else in his/her place I have to make sure there are more people with this name around. SportsAddicted | discuss 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, no problem at all! When I create an article, I usually try to see what else links there, and set up any necessary disambiguation. I was lazy in doing that with Timothy Davies, and thanks for being so quick off the mark in adding the others. The one change I made is that when a name is ambiguous I prefer (unless one is much much more notable) to keep the unqualified name as a disambiguation page: apart from avoiding any disutes about who is the most notable, that allows the use of popups to fix the other links. --~~
- I agree with that, but the fact that I did not know about the politician does not mean he is as or less notible as the others and might have offended you in any way, because these were still red links. Anyways, the runner became a hoax today, so I made it a stub. SportsAddicted | discuss 23:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply - What article name for this man?
Hi, sorry that I needed so long. I have searched in the London Gazette and the only reference I found was "Sir Brook William Bridges, Baronet (now Lord FitzWalter)", so "Brook Bridges, 1st Baron FitzWalter" should be correct. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 11:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
Re: Violet Bathurst, Lady Apsley
Yup - the London Gazette, issue 39555, page 11. Craigy (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, have added the reference.[1] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Justa quick query on your edit to the table of members in Southport BHG. Is that what you actually intended or is it just a mistake? Thanks Galloglass 13:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm a bit slow today: which bit of the edit do you mean? The Brunners? see Sir John Brunner, 2nd Baronet and Sir John Brunner, 1st Baronet; the Southport MP was the second Baronet, son of the first. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- No the Brunner bit was fine, you've sorted out the loose end I was too idle to finish :) No was meaning the election column with (by-election) added. Just it looks a bit of a bugger the way it is now in black and seperate from the date. Would changing it to 1899 by-election or 1898 by-election be ok with you? Galloglass 14:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess either would be OK, and it's not a big deal either way. I had started doing this on several tables in the last day or two to annotate by-elections. I saw table some where which had a black "ge" or "be" after the link, which seemed a bit ugly (an abbreviation needs to be explained on first usage), but I thought that the idea of marking the by-elections was a good idea as long as the complete word was used.
- You're right that it all looks a bit busy that way, with both the brackets and the italics. Looking at it again, I'm not sure what the best approach is, so I doodled with it and created a test page at User:BrownHairedGirl/Southport MPs. Of the possibilities there, I think that I like best the two unitalicised examples: 1952 ("[[Southport by-election, 1952|1952]] by-election"), followed by 1899 ("[[Southport by-election, 1899|1899 by-election]]"): what do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Have been trying everything I can think of to get something that works with the 2 and 3 member constituencies as well as the one member ones but have not been able to find anything that looks reasonable. Probably just me being over-fussy again but it seems to cramp them a bit too much. Have a go and see what you think. Possibly we need to abbreviate by-election but I'm not keen on that idea either tbh :( Btw have a problem with the Blackburn table of members. In 1841 William Fielden jumped ship and joined the Cons. Have tried everying I usually do to show this but all of them break the table. As its your table I assume you can sort ;) Cheers Galloglass 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Need Some Advice
Hi, I need some assistance. I am rather new to this site, but I have run into some trouble and need some advice. On the Royal Descent article, recently I have been in an unfortunate dispute with this editor on the disussion page. They continue to argue and revert edits. The fighting is getting silly. I do not mean to speak down to them, but I am somewhat unsure on what to do. Any advice would be great. I want to do the right thing. What would be the best course of action? If not then I will remove myself from editing the article to avoid an edit war. Thank you! RosePlantagenet 16:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ruth Dudley Edwards
Her correct name is as above. I have NOT made any recent changes to this article so please withdraw your comments from my talk page. Also the correct procedure here would be to lease the hypenated page as a re-direct to the existing page that I alst edited in December. Weggie 11:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- What is going on!! The correct page has been deleted with RDEs correct name?? Why was the merge procedure not used ? Please undelete the page ASAP Weggie 11:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- See reply at User talk:Weggie#Ruth_Dudley_Edwards. I have used the merge procedure, and if you check the edit history of Ruth Dudley Edwards, you'll find that all your edits are there in the edit history, and that the final step was to reverted the page to your last version. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- What is going on!! The correct page has been deleted with RDEs correct name?? Why was the merge procedure not used ? Please undelete the page ASAP Weggie 11:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting this out. I must admit to having been reluctant to use moving when I could use cut and paste - but I can see the point of it, of course. Put it down to a mixture of laziness, ignorance and impulsiveness (I am a bear of little brain, and long words bother me ...) . The only other time I have done this was when I shifted the text of Aceldama to Akeldama (which seems to be the version used by most modern sources). The edit summary does clearly explain that this was done, so looking at the history of both pages should show this. I also included some of the text from Haceldama (which is the same subject) in Aceldama before I did this. You're going to tell me I should have done a merge, aren't you?Rbreen 21:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- No need for quite so much self-flagellation (if you'll excuse the long word! <grin>!) But, yes, you should have done a move (it's less work in the end).
- Anyway, thanks for telling me about Aceldama/Akeldama: I have merged the two histories. Please could you take a look and tell me if it all seems OK? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- That looks fine, thanks! Rbreen 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Date formats
Sorry but according to my understanding of the MOS your edit is incorrect. It does say you can use either December 8 or 8 December, and that editors may choose to use the date format used in a particular country. However I'm not going to get into an argument over which way round should be used. But your addition of an ordinal suffix is specifically listed as an incorrect date format. Thanls. One Night In Hackney 22:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't usually argue about which way round they should go, but when someone is editing articles specifically to impose the American format on an article about a British topic, I do object per WP:MOS#Disputes_over_style_issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I am not referring to whether 8 comes before December or after. Your edit re-inserted the ordinal suffix which is specifically listed as an incorrect date format. One Night In Hackney 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you would be kind enough to actually read the message I wrote on your talk page, you will see that I specifically said that "you were right to remove the ordinal suffix", and I have now removed that from the Louth article.
- Why do you persist in harking on that issue (where I started the discssion by saying that you were right), but insist that you will not engage about your imposition of the American format? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I assumed that as I specifically stated I wasn't going to get into an argument over the other issue that you would realise I had taken your comments on board. One Night In Hackney 22:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks v. much for that clarification. In my experience, "I'm not going to get into an argument about this" usually means something on a spectrum from "this is unimportant", via "you haven't persuaded me, but whatever" to "I couldn't care less what you say, you *^%%$$%!", but I'm glad to see that I read that wrongly here. Thanks! :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Please contribute
[2] - Kittybrewster 18:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Tidy up Thanks
I admit I follow the pages you create. I find parliamentary history quite interesting, and its facinating to see the many pages etc you create. One question I would like to ask if I may; In the many unopposed by-elections during the War, when there was only one candidate I presume the public didn't vote? Was the candidate then declared winner on the day by-election would have taken place? --Berks105 09:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the basic answer is yes.
- The purpose of a parliamentary election is to allow the electorate to choose between candidates when there are more candidates than seats, so when the number of candidate matches the number of seats, there is no choice to be made, and hence no need for a vote. The only exception that I am aware of to that principle in parliamentary elections is the system which used to exist in the USSR, where voters always had the opportunity to reject all the candidates; an election was held even if there was only one candidate, so that the electorate could vote "none of the above". I rather like that possibility :)
- In the unreformed House of Commons, it was common for two-member constituencies to be carved up by agreement: the Whigs and Tories might agree to each nominate only one candidate, so that both could avoid the cost of a contested election. When there were no limits on campaign spending, the costs could be high: the government as so determined to defeat the Whig Charles James Fox in the Westminster constituency that
- "The Treasury spent the enormous sums of more than £8,000 in 1780 and £9,000 in 1784, in unsuccessful attempts to defeat the opposition Whig leader Charles James Fox. So expensive were these contests that for the next general election in 1790, the government and opposition leaders reached a formal agreement for each to have one member returned unopposed." (see Westminster (UK Parliament constituency)#History
- The only thing I am uncertain about is exactly when a candidate is declared elected if there is no contest. The usual process nowadays is for a voting day to be set when nominations are opened; if nominations close without the need for an election, there are three possibilities for when the candidate is declared elected: the point at which nominations closed, the last day for nominations to be withdrawn (if that possibility exists, which I think it does in some elections), or the designated polling day. I'm afraid that I don't know which applies here.
- Hope this helps! And thanks again for scrutinising my contributions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Welsh constituencies
Thanks for your note, I've responded on the CfD page. Perhaps we're approaching this from quite divergent angles. I have a background in UK Constitutional Law so I am perhaps prone to take a somewhat legalistic approach to these questions, however I really can't see any acceptable reason to describe the Assembly as a Parliament.
The prime authority is the Act of Parliament which established the body, the Government of Wales Act 1998. Nowhere does this Act use the term 'Parliament' to describe the Assembly. As such I think that it is thoroughly inappropriate to suggest otherwise within Wikipedia (OR, etc).
I really do think than in terms of Law, we must strive to be exact. It may be that some might refer to the Assembly constituencies as 'Parliamentary', however they are wrong. The Law sets things out in fairly black-and-white terms, and if this encyclopaedia is to fulfil its aims, it has to reflect this.
Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 19:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that despite your background in Constitutional Law, you have missed the point here, and I suggest that you re-read the nomination: this is not a proposal to categorise the NAW constituencies as "Parliamentary". The Welsh Assembly constituencies are named and categorised as such: it would be quite wrong to label them otherwise, because (as you rightly point out), the body is called "The National Assembly for Wales".
The purpose of the nomination is to clarify the distibction between the Assembly and the Westminster Parliament names of the categories containing the constituencies of the Westminister Parliament, by giving them a more specific name which is still entirely accurate.
As a constitutional lawyer, you will be alert to distinction in names, and a political operator, It's stuff I eat and breathe too. All I am trying to do here is to clariffy the issues for the readers who may not be so familiar with the distinction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
PW
The creationist has resumed his work - Category:Indian pastors, deleted in Jan acc to this cfd, has been re-created, together with cats of pastors of varying nationalities. roundhouse 14:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I really thought that he had turned over a new leaf. :(
I have restored the history of Category:Indian pastors to show the recreation, and tagged it for speedy deletion with {{db-repost}}.
However, after all the work done in December and January, this really is getting unacceptably disruptive. I think it's time to go back to WP:ANI, with a renewed request for a ban on category creation, so I have left a note on Pw's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Some of these edits are truly disruptive. Category:Methodism in Iowa and Category:Methodism in Ohio appear to be attempts to game the system; they are recreations of the "minister by state" categories that had been deleted in December. I have nominated the categories for deletion. The creation of additional pastor categories when Category:Christian pastors is being debated is also disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I hadn't spotted those others: how silly :(
I'm afraid that I won't have the time to take action for a few days, but will get on the case next week. If anyone wants to start work in the meantime, I'll lend my support when I'm back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Now we have Category:Former Sikhs plus a clutch today of essential cats for Dominica stemming from Philip Potter (church leader). -- roundhouse 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- And here he's moved a page + talk page in which specific previous objections have been made to precisely this move. A loose canon, perhaps. -- roundhouse 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Now we have Category:Former Sikhs plus a clutch today of essential cats for Dominica stemming from Philip Potter (church leader). -- roundhouse 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Attorneys General for England and Wales
Heja, since you have created Category:Attorneys General for England and Wales, it might be interesting for you that Category:Attorneys-General for England and Wales also exists. Perhaps you can redirect the one to the other one. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 20:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
- Thanks! I have redirected Category:Attorneys-General for England and Wales to Category:Attorneys General for England and Wales, and populated the latter with the AGs from 1800 onwards (where the articles exist, of course). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your effort! Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 06:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
If I read the Donna Shalala article history correctly, you changed her category Miami University alumni to University of Miami alumni. Now she's president of University of Miami and listed in the category for presidents of that university but I never found a source stating that she actually studied there. After all, she studied at Western College for Women, which today is a part of Miami University in Ohio's Miami River Valley. Of course, Western College for Women was not a part of Miami University (which has nothing to do with her current university, University of Miami) then and for that reason it might be inaccurate to put her in the Miami University alumni categori as well (she already is listed in the "Alumnae of women's colleges and universities" category).
There was a lot of other stuff pointing in different directions in the Shalala article as well, somebody has apparently changed her Catholic religion to Jewish without giving a source (is she a very recent convert to Judaism?) and her middle name was stated as Esther rather than the Edna found at the Secretary of Health and Human Services page, to name one contrary source. 128.214.205.4 11:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Winwick
Heja, do you know perhaps to which constituency Winwick can refer?[3]?. Unfortunately, it is no spelling error and Warwick is meant. The only other reference I have found in the net has led me to Warrington, but this constituency was created in 1832 and cannot be the right therefore either. ~~ Phoe talk 19:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
Latest Pastorwayne category
Check Category:Linguists of Biblical languages. This seemed very strange. Let me know if you agree with my assessment. Also, please keep me informed of any action against Pastorwayne. Dr. Submillimeter 21:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Off-line
My laptop is misbehaving weirdly, so I may be off-line for up to a week while I try to fix it ... so please don't expect any replies from me for a while. Damn computers :(