User talk:A.D.Hope

Military History Newcomer of the Year, 2023

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		Congratulations! As the lead coordinator of WikiProject Military history it is my pleasure to present the WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your nomination for the 2023 Military History Newcomer of the Year "for high quality castle articles such as Dolwyddelan Castle". Please accept this token of gratitude and appreciation on behalf of the project; we hope to see more of you in the years to come. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many congratulations, well-merited recognition of your work on here. KJP1 (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate the kind words, especially given the high quality of your own edits. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing to disagree

While we do disagree - quite fundamentally, I think - on matters related to policy, process and procedure, we respect each other's content contributions. Collaborative approaches to improve content are fundamental for me, and I hope that we can work together again in that area, present disagreements notwithstanding. KJP1 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KJP. I'm sure it took a lot to offer an olive branch, and I very much appreciate it. Our interests overlap and we're bound to bump into each other again (I was just looking at Wightwick Manor, could be up your street), and I'd much rather it be on friendly terms. We've worked together well before, as you kindly mentioned in relation to Dolwyddelan Castle, so it must be possible to do it again!

To be quite honest I'm not sure how I got embroiled in so many drawn-out discussions at once, although Montacute is obviously my own fault. I will agree with you that I can be too dogged for my own good, and I can understand your frustration with that. It's something I'll work on. I do hope you don't really think that I just bulldoze through other editors, though. I try to think of the person behind the screen, even when we don't agree, but maybe it looks different from the other side. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In you don't already know it, the is one of the best architectural blogs around, [1], in my humble opinion. I doubt it would be considered RS - although I don't think I've ever tried - but it is exceptionally well-researched. KJP1 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly have a look. Thank you very much, KJP! A.D.Hope (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please Support my Wikipedia Library Request

Hi,

Sorry for using your talk page, but I couldn't think of a better way to access you. You have shown an interest in British (Country House) Architectural History. I have suggested that Wikipedians gain access to the Country Life Archive on The Wikipedia Library (https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/suggest/). Please feel free to support this suggestion (titled "Country Life Archive (Proquest)" on the above page) if you think this is a good idea.

Feel free to @ me here with any questions.

Cheers, EPEAviator (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City Region articles

Evening A.D. Just so you know, I stayed out of this prior discussion as one of the involved editors was particularly problematic (as you experienced yourself). Just so you know, that user has "retired" from wikipedia. To not get into all the drama; I'd be happy to start the conversation properly about how to handle City Region articles as they are currently incredibly inconsistent. I would have started the conversation myself, but you had done the initial legwork etc so don't want to appear to be jumping in. There has been some more recent activity at the LCR page with interested editors. No rush of course, just a heads up. Koncorde (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Church of England

Thanks for your correct and balanced edits to this article. I have noticed that this and many other Anglican-related articles have, very unfortunately, been subjected to considerable POV editing by, apparently, a few biased Evangelical Anglican and Roman Catholic editors in recent times. Anglicanus (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I know that the exact nature of Anglicanism is a somewhat thorny issue, but I think that the current wording is a sensible enough via media, as it were. I'm sure the other editors involved aren't acting in bad faith, but it's natural for there to be a bit of disagreement over defining something as broad as the C of E. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did at Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024#Israeli_participation. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you think that the page should be deleted, please read Wikipedia:How to delete a page. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. No discussion? Even though the content has been subject to lengthy discussion? Why? Kingsif (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't replaced a page with blank content, to my knowledge. If I have you can be sure it was a mistake, and apologies if so. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Invitation!

WikiProject Eurovision invitation for A.D.Hope!

Hello, I've noticed that you contributed to an article within our project's scope, and would like to formally invite you to join our team of editors at WikiProject Eurovision, a WikiProject dedicated to the Eurovision family of events. If you would like to join, then please add your name to this list and add the project talk page to your watchlist.
You may also wish to receive our Project's newsletter; if so then please add your name to the mailing list.

Expand this box to view a list of contests this project covers.

Thanks and have a nice day! Grk1011 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

County flags

Hello and good day: I need to just spit out something that has been bothering me a long time admittedly. I'll keep it very simple to not encourage my procrastination even more months: I think it was completely wrong of you to just obliterate the flags from the ceremonial county articles for the UK (e.g. Cheshire). Without exaggerating too much, it feels like straight-up encouraging illiteracy and depriving people of info. It is already well-known that most readers look at the infobox first (and barely more than that and the lede); I just don't understand why we can't just restore them with notes/captions that these aren't technically official (though still carry common currency in symbolism, generally speaking). The fact I have to manually KNOW OF and search Flag of Cheshire to even see the blue banner, and this applying for every other county too? I'm earnestly curious, did you consider just how lazy and desperate the average Wikipedia reader is? What was the point of all this? Anybody likely to misinterpret even ante status quo was likely to seek out a shoddy site from Google Images regardless, without even our Wikipedia veneer of secure citaiton. Please, don't think I'm being accusatory at all, I'm just baffled I guess. Thank you for reading and I really hope you to try to at least understand my POV. A picture really does say a thousand words, and beauty is important. 🖼️--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 03:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. The flags have been removed from most of the English ceremonial county infoboxes, but they are still present in those articles; Cheshire's can be found in the Cheshire#Culture subsection. It also has its own article, as you know, so I don't feel that readers are being deprived of information about the flags. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, hi excuse me, I'm really sorry to return months later about this, but to simply-as-I-can beat my shy procrastination: It still keeps really bugging me you have to scroll allllllllll the way down on most county pages to see the flag (which most readers will never do). It just makes 0 sense and is not pleasing to the eye, seems amateurish almost. I don't even know what to say besides I see no reason it shouldn't be in the infobox with a disclaimer note or something their official status is ambiguous. The only reason I haven't reverted them all is because of the tedium of doing all that. :( ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 22:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sigehelmus. The best place to raise a discussion about this would probably be WT:UKGEO, which is the WikiProject for UK geography stuff. My talk page isn't the best place to discuss how we handle county flags – although I've been involved with the topic I don't WP:OWN it, after all. A.D.Hope (talk) A.D.Hope (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SIR

The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that. The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name. Except for the initial reference and infobox, do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent, because doing so implies that the existing version is incorrect (similar in spirit to the guideline on English spelling differences). Similarly, honorific titles should not be deleted when they are used throughout an article unless there is consensus.

Dank Jae 12:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What have you posted this here for, Jae? A.D.Hope (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A.D.Hope your constant re-adding of Sir at 2024 United Kingdom general election. Dank Jae 12:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a biographical article, so MOS:Sir doesn't directly apply. Applying the spirit of it would mean using 'Sir' at the first mention and then dropping it, which is the approach I adopted. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still there is no requirement to add Sir to every single article on the subject. Many of Kier's sub-articles omit it. It is just unnecessary and MOS:SIR only calls for their use once on their actual article. Dank Jae 13:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't added 'Sir' to every article on the subject, in fact I'm largely uninvolved in political articles; I only edited the lead of the 2024 election article because it was long and excessively detailed.

I appreciate that you find the use of 'sir' unecessary, but even if we apply MOS:SIR to the article despite it not being biographical I have followed the spirit of the guideline. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A.D.Hope, still I only really see Sir on the actual article. I find it comparable to "Professor" adding Professor in front whenever a subject is mentioned (whether first or not) seems promotional IMO but more over-the-top. Nonetheless, Sir I think was absent from the election article's lead until it was added recently.

Plus if the lead or text does include many subjects with knighthoods, we may need to add 20 "Sir"s, it just is not needed imo. Dank Jae 13:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ben

I have, of course, reverted your latest edit to Big Ben. There is no consensus for that edit, and you are a lone voice pushing for Elizabeth Tower being more prominent in the article. Your edits, and your continued one-sided arguments on the talkpage, are pushing into disruptive. Sometimes when editing on Wikipedia, even when we feel we are absolutely right, we need to let go and move on. I've been in your position, and know how frustrating it can be when you feel you are right and everyone else is wrong. But, if you carry on trying to push your point, it will only cause you (and others) more stress. There are millions of articles, many of which are sorely in need of attention. You would feel more relaxed if you let this fight go, and got on with working on other areas of the project. As time passes you will come to accept the situation, and even get to the point where you wondered why this mattered so much to you. SilkTork (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this over to the talk page, as I feel it would be best to keep the comments in one place. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbria

I think you accidentally left the old version of the Geog paragraph as well as the new one ~~- have removed it~~. (Hmm, in hindsight perhaps I should have commented it out... yes, have commented it out. ) PamD 16:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, sorry about that! Thanks for catching and correcting it. Remind me, did we have a conversation about that paragraph somewhere or have I imagined it? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the conversation you're thinking of is the one a few posts up, also headed "Cumbria". But remind me, where was there a discussion about the notability of wards? We've had a spate of articles recently on every individual ward of towns like Louth, Lincolnshire, such as St James', Louth, which really don't seem notable and seem positively unconstructive. PamD 11:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me not to look at my own talk page, sorry about that. Are you more or less happy with the current wording of that paragraph? Cumbria is one of the more difficult counties to describe geographically, as there's quite a lot going on there.

I'm not sure where that discussion might have taken place, if it did, as I'm not involved with those articles. It looks like our friend DragonofBatley has created many of them, so I'll open a discusson at the UK geography talk page to see what's what. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Studley Royal Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deer park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]