→September 2022: Reply Tag: Reply |
→September 2022: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
::"Controversial" as in it should have been obvious that the renaming of such a high-traffic article wouldn't be uncontroversial, not that it had been discussed previously. I'll admit my summary could have been better worded to convey that. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 19:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC) |
::"Controversial" as in it should have been obvious that the renaming of such a high-traffic article wouldn't be uncontroversial, not that it had been discussed previously. I'll admit my summary could have been better worded to convey that. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 19:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::I must admit that I didn't really consider whether the article was heavily-trafficked or not, so I'll bear that in mind in the future. Thanks for getting back to me, I appreciate it! [[User:A.D.Hope|A.D.Hope]] ([[User talk:A.D.Hope#top|talk]]) 19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC) |
:::I must admit that I didn't really consider whether the article was heavily-trafficked or not, so I'll bear that in mind in the future. Thanks for getting back to me, I appreciate it! [[User:A.D.Hope|A.D.Hope]] ([[User talk:A.D.Hope#top|talk]]) 19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
::::You're welcome. I know you did the move in good faith, and wasn't doubting that, the second level notice notwithstanding. That was primarily for information purposes. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 19:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:51, 25 September 2022
Catherine's arms
I see the issue now, thank you. I hadn't been paying sufficient attention [hadn't realised that it was 'Duchess of Cornwall' in the file name and not 'Duchess of Cambridge'] and missed that the file and the blazon do actually match. DrKay (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's no problem at all.
- The only reason I changed the image file is I think it's best to wait until we get confirmation of Prince William's new grant of arms (which I'm guessing will happen sooner rather than later) before publishing the change ourselves. A.D.Hope (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Edits during RfCs
Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment, "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved." DrKay (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- The RfC is at William, Prince of Wales, not Charles III. It specifically relates to the former article, which I have not edited since opening the RfC except to correct the coat of arms infobox. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Titles & styles
Howdy. FWIW, however the RFC at Prince William's talkpage turns out. My main hope is, that its results will be applied consistently across all affected bios :) GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hello! Of course, whatever the result I'll help apply it consistently :) A.D.Hope (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
What's the rush?
Branching this discussion off from Prince William's talkpage:
It's not disruptive to me nor to that one particular page, but if you apply it to every page where this format is used without the backup of a centralized discussion and consensus (even if only a pseudo consensus) to point back to, then based on my experiences with other wikipedians, I'd say you would be effectively kicking a hornet's nest. And a big one given how many wikiprojects all those pages are linked to. I'm not saying this change should or shouldn't be made, I just wouldn't advise jumping the gun and doing it everywhere without getting feedback from more editors first. After all, what's the rush? Cheers. Gecko G (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not in a rush, I'm just not a fan of introducing bureaucracy where it may not be necessary. If you think we need to gain a concensus then I've no objections A.D.Hope (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- It looked to me like you were about to kick a hornet's nest, so I figured I'd warn ya, but maybe I've just been burned by similar bad experiences on Wikipedia and so perhaps I am overly cautious. Maybe it wouldn't be at all. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not at all, I appreciate the warning! Thank you, Gecko :) A.D.Hope (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- It looked to me like you were about to kick a hornet's nest, so I figured I'd warn ya, but maybe I've just been burned by similar bad experiences on Wikipedia and so perhaps I am overly cautious. Maybe it wouldn't be at all. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Philip, Elizabeth, and Diana's funeral
A.D.Hope, I have to confess that I like the way you summarize information without removing key points and also keeping some extra details in the footnotes for those who might be interested (I noticed that you haven't gone through the section about Elizbeth II's committal service but I assume you'll be going over it in the near future). And that is why I though you'd be the best choice to have a look at Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. There are currently two sections covering major church services after his death; one the funeral service itself and the other the thanksgiving service. Details have been similarly covered in the Death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales, which might need a little bit of trimming as well. You probably know that I'm personally very detail oriented, but with that in mind would you be able to summarize the sections within these articles the way you did it for Elizabeth II? Again, I'm in favor of keeping the name of participants who walked behind the coffins, the hymns and music, etc. but I believe you can summarize it without removing and deleting the crucial parts. And please bear in mind that this is a request. I know that you might be busy in your life, so take your time and make the necessary edits as soon as you are available and willing to do it. Many thanks. Keivan.fTalk 19:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for thinking of me, Keivan, I'm very flattered! I've enjoyed this little dialogue we've been having over the past couple of days. As I've said before I appreciate the amount of detail you've brought to the article, so I hope you don't mind me condensing it too much.
- When I get a minute I'll certainly have a look at the other articles, particularly Prince Philip's. I'll get around to them once I've finished the Queen's, I expect. :) A.D.Hope (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White heather.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II
Hi there. Your rewrite of the "Lying-in-state" section of this article has reverted some of the edits I made not long ago. I just wanted to check, before I reinstate any of these edits, if these changes were deliberate and you have a reason for reverting my edits, or if it's because you started working on the section before I made my edits and therefore the reversions are accidental. H. Carver (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hello! It's simply the latter and I'm sorry your edits were reverted. I appreciate it's not best practice, but I had a lot of material to juggle and didn't want to risk losing it. I have begun to go back and re-insert your edits though, it wasn't my intention to obliterate them A.D.Hope (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- No worries! I completely understand, having been in your situation myself previously (most recently with the Operation London Bridge article, where I ended up going for the 'losing it' option and recreating a day later instead). As it has been converted from a timeline, I was going through the article on a copy-editing pass looking at is as if I were coming to it for the first time. Once I reached the 'Coverage' point it was more than apparent that the conversion hadn't got that far, so I've paused my copyediting for the time being. I appreciate your checking my edits and adding some of them back; I understand where you're coming from in not adding all of them back, and where we disagree I'm happy at the moment to leave it and see how other editors see it. Best regards, H. Carver (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your understanding! I hope I'm not the type of Wikipedia to quibble over a comma, it's just that a lot of this information can easily be come dry and so I try to vary the sentence length etc. to help maintain interest. It's very helpful that you're following me, so to speak, as at the moment I'm focussing on the big picture rather than the details.
- You're right about the conversion not having reached 'Coverage' yet, I'm only up to 'Committal'. There's a lot of good stuff in 'Organisation', but it does need a bit of a sift through. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the Met police quote, saying "the Metropolitan Police described..." is what I initially tried, but it does not work - if you check the reference given for this, you will see it is the writer of the article who describes it in this way, not the police themselves. H. Carver (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think this article might just have solved our problem, thoughts? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comparing that article with the original article, it looks like the one you've found front-and-centres a quote that the original article buries so deep that I missed it when skimming earlier:
- Original: "Cundy told Reuters. "This will be the single largest policing operation that the Met police has ever undertaken and I think is every likely to undertake.""
- Article you've found: "Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Cundy said 'nothing can compare' to the 'hugely complex' task, describing it as the 'largest policing operation' in the Met’s history."
- I think either of these quotes/references would work in place of the quote that's taken from the writer of the original article. The one you've found is easier to verify, as the quote is right at the top of the article, while quoting from the original will mean not needing to cite another reference (if potentially more work to verify, as more scrolling may be needed - but using Cundy's wording rather than article writer's wording makes searching page for verification much easier). H. Carver (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- My preference would generally be to use Reuters, as local reporting by Reach (who own the Manchester Evening News) leaves something to be desired. I'm not sure it really matters in this case, however. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- I entirely agree, and must bite my tongue lest I say too much about Reach. Your latest edit looks to have solved this particular issue perfectly, and (for now) I have no further notes :) Best regards, H. Carver (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent! Between us (and everyone else helping) we'll get this article into shape yet :) A.D.Hope (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- I entirely agree, and must bite my tongue lest I say too much about Reach. Your latest edit looks to have solved this particular issue perfectly, and (for now) I have no further notes :) Best regards, H. Carver (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- My preference would generally be to use Reuters, as local reporting by Reach (who own the Manchester Evening News) leaves something to be desired. I'm not sure it really matters in this case, however. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think this article might just have solved our problem, thoughts? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- No worries! I completely understand, having been in your situation myself previously (most recently with the Operation London Bridge article, where I ended up going for the 'losing it' option and recreating a day later instead). As it has been converted from a timeline, I was going through the article on a copy-editing pass looking at is as if I were coming to it for the first time. Once I reached the 'Coverage' point it was more than apparent that the conversion hadn't got that far, so I've paused my copyediting for the time being. I appreciate your checking my edits and adding some of them back; I understand where you're coming from in not adding all of them back, and where we disagree I'm happy at the moment to leave it and see how other editors see it. Best regards, H. Carver (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for attempting to mediate between myself and another user in a discussion. I appreciate your effort, and it helped make the space feel safe enough to post my subsequent (and last) reply there. I am disappointed to see that the user in question has made no acknowledgement of this reply and has only doubled down on their complaints. At this point I will will no longer engage with them, per WP:CIVIL. This is the first time I've experienced someone be so invested in a move discussion to the point where they've responded to so many oppose votes to directly argue against them, and it's a little bit of a shock! I respect their investment in their nomination and I appreciate they made some valid points about needing to improve my arguments by citing policies. But there's a line beyond which bluntness becomes rudeness. A line which I'm aware of also because I've been that blunt person in the past, and I have and will always take the chance to step back, reflect, and apologise where I can see I've ended up the wrong side of it. It's a shame. But thank you, again, for trying to help. Best regards, H. Carver (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I could see things becoming a bit argumentative so I thought an interjection might have helped. It didn't, but never mind! These things happen and it's definitely better to walk away from a thread like that than get drawn into it, so I wouldn't worry or overthink it. :) A.D.Hope (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
September 2022
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Unmanned aerial vehicle. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mind a WP:BOLD edit being reverted, firstly. It's partly the point of them.
- However, the talk page of Unmanned aerial vehicle contains no recent move requests and there's no banner on the article leading to a discussion elsewhere, so I couldn't find any discussion underway or existing consensus which I could have gone against — if I had I wouldn't have made the move. If there is a discussion or consensus somewhere would you mind pointing it out to me, so I'll know where else I might need to look in the future? Thank you :) A.D.Hope (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Controversial" as in it should have been obvious that the renaming of such a high-traffic article wouldn't be uncontroversial, not that it had been discussed previously. I'll admit my summary could have been better worded to convey that. BilCat (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- I must admit that I didn't really consider whether the article was heavily-trafficked or not, so I'll bear that in mind in the future. Thanks for getting back to me, I appreciate it! A.D.Hope (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I know you did the move in good faith, and wasn't doubting that, the second level notice notwithstanding. That was primarily for information purposes. BilCat (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- I must admit that I didn't really consider whether the article was heavily-trafficked or not, so I'll bear that in mind in the future. Thanks for getting back to me, I appreciate it! A.D.Hope (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Controversial" as in it should have been obvious that the renaming of such a high-traffic article wouldn't be uncontroversial, not that it had been discussed previously. I'll admit my summary could have been better worded to convey that. BilCat (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)