User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 10

Question: Articles of police departments

I am a member of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. I believe you may be the only coordinator who is currently active so I figured I would ask your option on this. I started a few articles on police departments in my local area. Another editor redirected all the articles to the city or town in which the PD has jurisdiction and put the comment "redirected nn police department to the city it serves" on the edit. Here is one of the articles: [[1]]. He did not put the PD info into the city article, so he essentially deleted the article and linked it in title only to the respective city. What do you think makes a police department notable enough to justify its own article as opposed to making it just a section within the jurisdiction's article? Size of the city? Number of swore officers? Thanks for your time. Extermino (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Hamilton Fire Department

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hamilton Fire Department , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. RES2773 (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish people of Bangladeshi descent change

Hi Necrothesp,

I was wondering about this edit which you made reverting one of my edits. As the category 'People of Bangladeshi descent' that was added was a parent of already present category 'British people of Bangladeshi descent' I had thought that WP:SUBCAT applied which was why I removed it. Was that wrong?

A genuine question, (Feel free to delete this section)

Icarusgeek (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. My apologies. Your edit got caught up in a mass reversion of an anon editor's bad edits. I've reverted my change to your edit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - thank you - Icarusgeek (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of abbreviations

I've reinstate some changes I made to disambiguation pages, according to WP:DABABBREV and MOS:DABACRO. There are two long discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Delete inappropriate dab entries? and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Delete inappropriate dab entries? - ongoing dispute. If you feel that any of the disambiguation entries I've deleted meet the guideline (defined in an existing article, in a nutshell), please reinstate them, I may have made mistakes. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I really objected to was not your deletion of entries, but your changes in the definitions, which to me frequently seemed to be reducing the usability of the page for no good reason. I fail to see the value of removing perfectly good and useful definitions on a disambiguation page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:DABNOT. Maybe you would like to dispute this guideline and suggest it be modified, or qualified? I see so many entries that spread over several lines, have several links, and generally make a disambiguation page long and messy to use. As far as possible I try to keep entries on one line, and with just sufficient information to disambiguate the different meanings of a term, avoiding masses of text that attract the eye and have to be read. If the guideline is changed, I'll of course try to follow it. If you particularly object to any specific changes I made, you could discuss a few on the WP:D Talk page, not for their own sake, but as a discussion of principle to improve the guideline. And of course you can always amend any abbreviations page if ou feel that more is needed to meet the guideline. Or to make the page more useful while keeping it sensibly brief; there's no need to be too bureaucratic. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked on hundreds of disambiguation pages, I don't dispute the guideline at all. I'm afraid, however, that I do dispute your interpretation of it. I agree that entries should be on one or two lines (depending on the length of the disambiguated term) and contain no links other than the main term. However, I think your paring down is too severe and is deleting information useful to those coming to the page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say my trimming is entirely in line with the guideline (WP:DABNOT: "entries should be just sufficient for disambiguation."); but maybe the guideline needs change? I personally think not; any relaxation will lead to disambiguation pages more like articles, but the possibility can certainly be contemplated. At the moment I don't want to try people's patience with a potentially long discussion on this, having recently started two long discussions on WP:D. You haven't said exactly what you think a disambiguation entry should be, but I presume that you would like a link followed by a summary of the entry? By the way, I don't know how significant it is, but I'm also aware of the need not to make things too bad for people with sight problems who use a text-to-speech reader; a page full of irrelevant entries, and lots of detail on each one, is not very useful. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A brief summary of the entry, yes. That does not contradict the guidelines in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response. You might like to edit guideline WP:DABNOT to conform with the above. Editing a guideline is one way to gauge what others think, there is usually rapid response if anyone disagrees. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for your contribution in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Keshvari. AliAkar (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Yadav

Hello, my friend. I notice you made this move. The target was salted. Did you get some sort of warning box that you were moving to a salted page? I remember some discussion somewhere that this ought to be fixed. Just curious. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. No warning at all. I just spotted the AfD and moved it from a wholly inappropriate title. The article clearly shouldn't exist on WP anyway (you will notice I have already said this on the AfD). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I tested the move to salt and also got no warning. You may have noticed your username pinged at the village pump post about it. I hope they fix things. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion from WikiProject Law Enforcement

Could you guys ask members of the WikiPrject Law Enforcement to take a look at the article about Morganza Police Department and weigh in on its nomination for deletion? Sf46 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

An image or media file has been removed from your user page, user talk page, or other page because it is licensed as non-free. Wikipedia's non-free content policy states:

Copyrighted images under fair use are only allowed to be used in articles about the subject of the image. For example they are not allowed to be used on user pages, in lists, or (typically) in biographies of living people.

As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy and refrain from including non-free images on your user pages. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's non-free content policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of non-free images. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listed where?

Please explain [2], preferably by adding refs to the article. Otherwise I'll have to proceed to AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As in, listed as an historical monument on the list of Polish historical monuments![3] -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Abhay Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Hindaun City for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abhay Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Hindaun City is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhay Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Hindaun City until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jerodlycett (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reading Coat of Arms.png

Hi Necrothesp. I was looking at the non-free image "File:Reading Coat of Arms" and saw that it is being used in one of the userboxes in User:Necrothesp#My cities. I'm not sure if you created that particular userbox yourself, but non-free files are not supposed to be used in the userspace per WP:NFCC#9. Technically, I guess the file can be removed per WP:NFCCE, but I thought I'd point it out first out of courtesy. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding honorary titles to names

Hi. I believe as a general rule, the names listed on Deaths in 2015 are supposed to be the same as their articles. I might be wrong, but you should discuss it in the talk page before changing them. Nukualofa (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid you're incorrect. Titles are always included, as you will see by looking at any previous list (and actually several already on this list). No need for discussion here since this is already the established rule. In any case, how can names be the same as their articles when they are piped to get rid of disambiguators? -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, these aren't "honorary" titles. They are substantive titles conferred by the Crown. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations are the exceptions. In the case of Terry Pratchett, for instance, he's been listed as Sir Terry before, and it was removed. He's known all over the world as Terry Pratchett, and for most of the world the title is irrelevant. Nukualofa (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that relevant? He was British and Britain has titles. He was Sir Terry Pratchett. He used the knighthood. Even the announcement of his death on his own Twitter account called him Sir Terry! As I said, this is how people with titles are described on our death lists. Always have been. Looking at the first six months of Deaths in 2014, for instance, I count 62 Sirs! I think that pretty much proves my point! -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no denying there are disputes whether or not it should be included, as shown by the earlier removal of his title (by someone other than me). For a non-British person, it just doesn't make any sense. Even when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia died in January, he wasn't listed as King. But OK, I'll leave it to somebody else to decide. Nukualofa (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's your answer. You're not British and you don't realise how commonly used titles are here (and elsewhere in the Commonwealth). We would almost always use them if they were conferred, as they effectively become part of the individual's name. Personally, I think it's very weird that Americans append "Jr" and "III" after people's names and use married women's maiden names as middle names, but I wouldn't tell them they shouldn't do it because that's what they do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of melee

You voted not to make melee a disambiguation page in a recent move request. Per the discussion, I have suggested the article be deleted due to lack of a relevant, cohesive encyclopedic definition of "melee". Your input would be appreciated. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melee.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist me

Dear Necrothesp, if my understanding is correct, you are a firm supporter of redirect pages [4]. I am planning to create a new page: "County-Sultanate of Cornwall and the Hebrides". I am seeking your advice: should it be redirected to the page Cornwall or to the page Hebrides? Later I also want to create the redirect pages "Kingdom of New York", "Holy Margraviate of the Trafalgar Square" and Spiritual Reborn and the Application of the International Accounting Standards. Thank you for your assistance in advance. Borsoka (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt action. :) Borsoka (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that somebody thought the original title was a valid one (which yours clearly aren't), what's the problem with retaining it? It's only a redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. I am also somebody and I know that the titles that I propose are as valid as the County of Csesznek and the County of Csesznek and Milvány. Borsoka (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that they didn't make up a title to try to prove a point! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the never existing "County of Csesznek" or "County of Csesznek and Milvány"? The redirect page from WP is the only source for the "county". Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you think these were created for vandalism purposes? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather for romantic purposes, together with the article about the Csesznekys' never existing "hereditary" Wildgraviate of the Bakony (previous version is here: [5]) and the history of the heroic (but poorly documented) "House of Cseszneky". Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still oppose the deletion of the two "redirect" links? Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frankly not that bothered, although you seem to be taking two redirects very seriously! Given they're not actually articles, I wonder why? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. Yes, I am taking them very seriously, because of WP:NOR. We are not here to create pages about never existing counties, duchies, kingdoms, animals, flowers, stars, people, gods .... Borsoka (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they were actual articles I'd agree with you, but I think you're taking a couple of redirects far too seriously! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, you cannot reprod an article that has been deprodded. Second, you shouldn't be prodding redirects in the first place. Please see WP:PROD for guidance. Third, I see no consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. If my understanding is correct, you are suggesting that I should create redirect pages of the Kingdom of New York and Canberra and the Mediatized Pashalik-Duchy of the Westminster Abbey. Borsoka (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding clearly isn't correct. Wikipedia procedures are very clear on how to get things deleted. Redirects should not be prodded or AfDed. They should be listed on redirects for discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice on the proper procedure. Borsoka (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting other people's talk page comments

at Bob Lambert? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same. I'm 100% sure it's accidental, of course. Keri (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not deliberately, I assure you. Must have been an edit clash. Given my edit history, you might try a bit of WP:AGF! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but it happened twice, and the timing doesn't support that explanation. Please be more careful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably editing an out of date version then. And that last comment is a tad patronising! Everyone makes mistakes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here too. Be careful! AGF, BDD (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

I see you have had previous involvement with the editor Hijiri88. I would welcome any input you might see fit to offer at WP:ANI#Ongoing gross incivility of Hijiri88. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Hi necrothesp, I'd be grateful to receive a link to the precedent you mentioned at [6] so that I can avoid making the same mistake twice. Additionally, please can you explain [7] for the same reason? Thanks for your time, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus that articles on secondary schools are considered to be notable. They are almost never deleted at AfD. You need to understand that prodding is only for uncontroversial deletions (generally utter rubbish, cruft or self-promotion of obviously non-notable people or groups). Articles about subjects that may have significance should be proposed for deletion at AfD, not prodded, as their deletion requires discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melee

There was recently a deletion debate which you took part. The debate continues on the talk page of the article (see talk:Melee). Please join the debate so that a consensus can be reached on the initial issues of whether it is appropriate to include the maintenance {{coatrack}} at the top of the article Melee. --PBS-AWB (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

College of Applied Science, Thamarassery

Hi, I noticed the image File:Cas thamarassery.jpeg on College of Applied Science, Thamarassery has been deleted as a copyright violation - neither myself or the bots can tidy up as you've locked it indefinitely - so I wonder if you could remove the now defunct red-link image. Cheers KylieTastic (talk)

Done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warrant Officer

Hi, thanks for your revert to OJOM's edit to the subject category. I just put a detailed explanation of why these French senior NCO ranks are not equivalent to US WOs/CWOs (and most definitely a French Major is NOT equivalent to a CWO-5!) and I thought that you might like to read it. Semper Fi! and Out.CobraDragoon (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cressida Dick

Hi, I wonder if you can help.

Cressida Dick is still listed as being an Assistant Commissioner at the Met although it is common knowledge and widely reported that she left that post in January of this year in a move to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. I want to update the page but her new job as a Director General at the Foreign office is not reported at all. I don't really want to update with 'an unknown role at the FCO' and the only evidence confirming her current post is on what Wiki would class an unreliable source here; http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1814622-uk-foreign-office-cressida-dick-foia-response-12.html. Prior to this there are records of requests online but none from great sources; https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/10/cressida-dick-uk-foreign-office-secret/.

With the BBC's new documentary series on the Met police starting last week, there's been a spike in viewing figures of her page.

What to do? Thanks. (Selector99 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I have now updated the page so this matter is resolved. Hope you had a great holiday. :-) Selector99 (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Hi Necrothesp

Thank you very much for helping out with the Fountainhead School page. I have recently made few changes to the page and am looking for your opinion about the same. Here is the link to the page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountainhead_School. I will appreciate if you can take a look and tell me if any changes are needed to this. I will also appreciate if you can help with how to remove the tag of "consideration for deletion" from the page as it seems to have resolved the issues.

Thanks and warm regards

Sikandar

Sikandaramla (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look

Hello! I am leaving this note for you because you participated in a deletion discussion about the Wikipedia article titled Institute of Continuing Education. I substantially expanded the article today (for the helluvit), and would appreciate if you would take a look and see if it’s better than when you last saw it. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Benedict

Hi Necrothesp. Do you have any thoughts on this dispute? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Philip_Benedict.23.22teaching.22_section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.161.20.219 (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

help me

necrothesp i need help to create an article named Women in Bangladesh Army. see my draft Draft:Women in Bangladesh Army. Yasmin542 (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oriya->Odia

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oriya_language#Requested_move_17_June_2015. Thanks. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mission statement

In the future, when writing an article about an organization such as Federal Ministry of Health (Nigeria), always try to avoid the mission state. Mission statements often make an article looks promotional. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: I think you've made a mistake here. I did not write and have not contributed to this article. All I have done is redirected to it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh.. Sorry this bot held you responsible for the page. I apologize for any misinformation. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it held me responsible for creating Nigerian Ministry of Health as a redirect to this page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshini High School

What was verified by you? School in pune Maharashtra? or school in Andhra pradesh? there is no agreement between body and reference. - Varma 15:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

That's because the article was originally about the Andhra Pradesh school but was later altered to refer to the Pune school. I've reverted the article to what it originally referred to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

Necro, what the heck is the significance of your username? I start wondering every time I see it. The best I can come up with is "Necro the SP," whatever that might mean . . . necro being a Greek root related to death (necropolis) and magic (necromancer). Care to share? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It does indeed come from the Greek root "necro" = "death" (a fantasy roleplaying in-joke dating from my long-ago university days) and from "thesp[ian]", since one of my other hobbies is acting in an amateur theatre company. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ha! I get it -- you are the "Death Player!" Remind me to not mess with you on-wiki. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm that fearsome! Irritable occasionally maybe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Death Player" sounds like one of the X-Men's mutant opponents -- wearing black tights with an ancient Greek drama mask. Perhaps with a sickle-shaped particle weapon. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tights are probably a step too far! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Cavalry Divisions

Necrothesp, you recently moved 4th Cavalry Division (British Indian Army) to 4th Cavalry Division (India) and 5th Cavalry Division (British Indian Army) to 5th Cavalry Division (India) with the edit summary ‎(no such thing as the British Indian Army). I do not understand the need for a change, as "British Indian Army" was merely being used as a disambiguator to help users to know what is being talked about. Hamish59 (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we simply use the disambiguator "(India)" for all formations and units, whether pre- or post-independence, unless it's necessary to make a distinction between the two. Since there's no need to distinguish here, "India" is fine. I was just bringing them in line with other Indian divisions - see Category:British Indian Army divisions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for getting back to me so quickly, and for the explanation. Just to tip you off, you may find problems / confusion when it comes to the Indian Cavalry Brigades in World War I. For example, 11th Indian Cavalry Brigade and 11th Cavalry Brigade (British Indian Army). Both existed at the same time, but were distinct (one was in Mesopotamia and one in Palestine). Hamish59 (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Typical British military obfuscation! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep. 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th all duplicated. The series I have named, for example, 10th Cavalry Brigade (British Indian Army) were in Palestine in 4th and 5th Divisons - these followed the existing British 3rd Cavalry Division (United Kingdom) / 9th Cavalry Brigade (United Kingdom) sequences, though not part of the British Army proper, hence did not use (United Kingdom) dab. Hamish59 (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - "(Indian Army)" would probably be a better disambiguator. That was its name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Err, no, I don't think so. The Indian Army at that time was just the locally raised units (including their British officers) so not including the British Army units. Also, this may cause confusion with modern Indian Army units / formations. Hamish59 (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        It would only cause confusion if there was currently a 10th Cavalry Brigade in the Indian Army. Again, we use "Indian Army" unless we need to disambiguate. Was this particular formation part of the British Army or the Indian Army? It looks to me like the former, despite having some Indian units, in which case surely 10th Cavalry Brigade (United Kingdom) would be better (which is already, incidentally, a redirect to it). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This whole area can be very confusing, hence my desire to get a reasonable dab in place.

the 1st Indian Cavalry Division was renumbered as the 4th Cavalry Division in France in 1916

the 2nd Indian Cavalry Division likewise became the 5th Cavalry Division

Should they be dabbed with (United Kingdom)? I do not think so - they were simply renumbered. Other than renumbering their RHA Brigades, nothing else changed. [I have not had a proper look at 1st / 2nd Ind Cav Divs as I am working through WWI Indian brigades at the moment, so I stand to be corrected.]

These formations were completely distinct from the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions under discussion so we need seperate articles. To add to the confusion, some of the units of the former divisions were transferred to Egypt to help form the latter divisions, initially as 1st and 2nd Mounted Divisions. Which is great because there were two more 1st Mounted Divisions and another 2nd Mounted Division in the British Army in WWI. More obfuscation!

As an aside, the Cavalry Division (India) was actually titled The Cavalry Division (Mesopotamia) but that would lead one to believe that some country called Mesopotamia had a Cavalry Division. Sigh. Just as well the Armoured Division (Egypt) got numbered later.

I understand your point. After discussion with User:Jim Sweeney, 10th Cavalry Brigade (United Kingdom) was moved to 10th Cavalry Brigade (British Indian Army) as a better dab. Its numbering in a particular sequence is not really material. I am trying to think of a counter example, best I can come up with is:

1st Armoured Division (Australia)

2nd Armoured Division (Australia)

3rd Armoured Division (Australia)

4th Canadian Armoured Division

5th Canadian Armoured Division

6th South African Armoured Division

But I am also thinking of the more general case: units or formations that existed in the British Indian Army but are distinct from units or formations in the modern Indian Army. Not just cavalry - though I am minded of

45th Cavalry (India) is a cavalry regiment of the modern Indian Army. However, there were unrelated 45th Cavalry regiments in the 1st and 2nd World Wars - currently mentioned in the article. At some point, someone might decide to write seperate articles for the earlier incarnations.

In fairness, I got a lot of stick for doing just that for 11th Gurkha Rifles unrelated to 11 Gorkha Rifles. Hamish59 (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All very complicated, as with most things to do with the British forces. On the whole, I dislike usage of "British Indian Army", since the term was never used and seems to carry the implication that the current Indian Army is the real Indian Army and its predecessor wasn't, but this can make disambiguation difficult, of course. I've also struggled in the past against editors who can't get their heads round the fact that British officers of the Indian Army were not British Army officers but Indian Army officers (although most did begin their careers in the British Army, of course). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fully with you there, Necrothesp. Is it British army officer, or British Army officer? Grins. I enjoy picking out Sherwood Rangers from Sherwood Foresters, though I have never managed to find a confusion between Inniskilling Fusiliers and Inniskilling Dragoons. Hamish59 (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinal v cardinal: Artillery

Wondering if you know anything about this: correct naming of artillery regiments. I know that when abbreviated, the normal usage is cardinal numbering eg "19 Regt RA" - but when unabbreviated, I was under the impression that the ordinal system is the correct usage eg "19th Regiment Royal Artillery". Any thoughts? Keri (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much as it pains me to say it, the normal system these days is actually cardinal: 19 Regiment, Royal Artillery (with the comma). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing PRODs on articles

I see you've removed numerous PRODs saying that the subject is notable - I could understand a claim of significance, but can you show me where this meets the WP notability claim? They are self-sourced, and as they are now do not fit requirements to be a page. Most subjects do not have their own page, as simply being from a notable role does not solely qualify having an article (I left articles where more substance/notability was presented). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garchy (talk • contribs) 14:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, actually it does. See WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - the articles have numerous problems on their own, including lack of reliable references. So they fit notability, but someone (preferably the creator or admin removing the PRODs on them) should be SHOWING that, or at a minimum tagging them with the issues. It isn't exactly the best way on Wikipedia to create numerous short stubs on Wikipedia with no references, so you can't really blame my WP:PRODs. Garchy (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fouled up a page move

Necrothesp, I fouled up a page move: 6th Prince of Wales's Cavalry to 6th King Edward' Own Cavalry when it should have been 6th King Edward's Own Cavalry - note "s" after the apostrophe. Have you got the power to move the page to its correct title? Hamish59 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, you're a star! Hamish59 (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic policing

Hi Necrothesp, I hadn't realised you're Coventry based. Do you ever go to meetups? I'd quite like to run a primary topic survey in Leamington today and report back the results. :) Widefox; talk 09:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No, never been to one. I prefer to do my editing in private! ;) As a former police officer in Leamington and Kenilworth, I know what my result would be! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some nice GLAM meetups a couple years ago at Herbert, but nowadays they seems to be more Brum direction. I will survey today and report back. Widefox; talk 10:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just heard this great joke..."what do you get if you put 3 computer scientists and an ex-policeman in a room? Talk:Traffic_policing#Primary_topic. (caveat haven't checked if Rich is one) Widefox; talk 11:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/paste move

I don't want to try to fix this move in case I screw it up any more than it already is; I suspect it may require tools. The user copied the content from 40th Regiment Royal Artillery and pasted it into 40 Regiment Royal Artillery instead of Moving, and the page history was subsequently left in the wrong place. [8] [9]. Thanks. Keri (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshirt

Just to let you know: During July you commented at a move request, now at Talk:Greyshirt (comics). The discussion was closed as "move". However, one of the discussants has reopened the discussion. Your original comment will still be taken into account and there is no need for you add anything further, but I am notifying all previous discussants as a courtesy. MelanieN (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks!!!

Aelimian21 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone academies...

Necrothesp, when I read the pertinent guidelines for schools, notability was assumed unless the schools were new or small, and this was the case in both cases - one had something like 150 students in 12 grades, the other had 400 in 12 grades, and they're both less than 20 years old. One article was sourced directly from a development director (which isn't even appropriate), and the school names are so common that I got a ton of refs for just about every other one but these. Interestingly enough, of the eight that were on the dab page for the name, these two are the only ones with articles (that's why I looked at them). Therefore, I don't think they're notable under the policy, but how can I show that if the information that the policy says is pertinent to the decision apparently isn't? MSJapan (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is consensus, as illustrated in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, that all secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you

		The Instructor's Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have performed stellar work in the area of instruction & help for other editors. Thank you for clarifying so well about disambiguation links Krishna Chaitanya Velaga* _☎ 13:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]*

Obvious from title??

Hello. I really respect your works here on Wikipedia but what is this "obvious from title"? I think as an administrator you have been long enough on Wikipedia to know that we should only use the common names. And in many articles such as Johnny Depp, Maggie Gyllenhaal, etc. you can see that the names they're known with are written in the first lines. It's a kind of rule in Wikipedia. These people have been called with those names during their lifetimes and sometimes removing those names makes confusion. For example Bill Brett, Baron Brett's common name is Bill while his full name is William Henry Brett. As you can see the common name and real name are completely unrelated and there's no other mentioning in the whole article. If I saw this article for the first time and I didn't know that you have removed the common name I absolutely moved the title. Please restore the previous versions of those articles. Thanks a lot. Keivan.f^Talk 14:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no such rule. Unfortunately many editors think there is such a rule, but there is not and should not be. See WP:MOSBIO for how these names should actually be structured. Especially Bill Clinton and the line which reads "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name". A nickname should especially never be inserted into the bolded full name which appears first in the article. As for Brett, "Bill" is an extremely common shortening of "William" and it doesn't need to be spelled out - we don't patronise our readers. It only needs to be spelled out if the name by which someone is known as not related to any of their given names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. But I think we can include the common name separately in the first line as you did with this article. Besides some people may not know the common forms of English names. For example I didn't know that Bill is a common shortening of William. So it's better to have them alongside the full names at the start of articles. But of course not for common names that are so obvious to be shortenings of full names, like Matt which is a shortened form of Matthew. But again I say it's better to have them separately in the first lines. Also excuse me for editing this message three times. ;) Keivan.f^Talk 20:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, this is English Wikipedia and is aimed at people whose native language is English (people with other native languages have their own Wikipedias). You would be hard-pressed to find a native English speaker who didn't know that Bill was the normal diminutive of William. Similar examples would include Bob or Bert (Robert), Jack (John), Jim (James), Harry (Henry), Kate (Catherine) and Liz (Elizabeth), none of which are true shortenings but which are incredibly common diminutives nonetheless. They just don't need explaining to a native English speaker. But the real bugbear here is insertion of a nickname in quotes or parentheses within a name; it looks terrible, amateurish and unencyclopaedic and also creates confusion as there are many different usages. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MC 1918-20

What a great piece of work this is! (which sounds so much better than: 'what a peculiar way to spend your life'... :;).

I refer to your entry for Captain & temp.Lt.Col. (just savour that one for a moment!) MCC Harrison, DSO, MC* (orange highlights). You can add afer the Regt., that he was in the 2nd Bn. His other MC falls within this article: 18.09.16. (bar: 20.01.30). (Ref.: for both: LG.31759, p.1229, of 20.01.30).. He merits an article in his own right.

He served in 2 RIr.Regt. pretty much the whole war, 1914-18, with the not-insignificant proviso that he was a POW from 14.11.20 to 17.09.13! (date of repatriation from neutral Netherlands). Given his absence from the Front, it was a rapid recovery to be CO 2 Bn. from 18.03.22 to Armistice. One MC would be for the escape and the DSO for being a CO for most of 1918, a busy year, literally in one way and then another... He was also given, for no obvious connection, al Valore Militare in silver, by Italy, presumably for the escape. (He was not in Cavan's forces in Italy). He was famous as a seasoned escaper, and is of course the Maj. (peacetime reversion) MCC Harrison who wrote Within Four Walls, with another escaper - not I think together on the 1917 one - in 1930. When the Irish regts. disbanded, he became a R.Tank Corps man. (he was used to being banged up within 4 walls... :;). His Captaincy was earned in 1907! (1907-23!), as a TF officer in 3 Bn., Loyal N.Lancs. In WW2, he worked in MI.9, passing on his escape experience to a new generation, until WW2 escapers could take over. He was after all, born in 1888! (c.52 y.o.). His work is about to be re-published, so there will be interest in an article. You're the man to do the job.

Keep up the great work.Protozoon (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's my ambition, which will probably never be achieved (!), to add every British honour to the list. He does indeed merit an article, and hopefully will receive one in due course. Regards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me a more nuanced view on Award Categories

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on what make an award defining; our conversation might be the only thing of value to come out of that silly nomination Based on your input, I gave more thoughtful vote on the other open nomination than I otherwise would have.

I don't think it's obvious now but, a year ago, many prominent Europeans had so many perfunctory award categories that it was difficult to navigate their other categories. But maybe we threw out the baby with the bathwater in a few cases. I'm not in favor of a wholesale rollback but I am absolutely open to reconsidering specific award categories in future CFD discussions. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be true that honours that are only used by heads of state to honour other heads of state (or people at a similar level) lead to category clutter, but it is ridiculous to delete categories for (genuine) honours with wider recipient bases. For a head of state with twenty honours from other countries it's probably not defining - just something they get as a matter of course when they visit each other. For other people it most certainly is defining. And to suggest gallantry awards aren't defining, as some editors seem to be doing, just shows monumental ignorance of the real world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Advice

Hi Necrotehsp,

We see that you've edited a number of legal articles on Wikipedia (attorney at law, etc). We are looking for advice on how to get a Wikipedia article for Lawyer.com and you seem like an expert in the space. If you can help with advice, we have provided all the secondary articles about our company below and a draft for an article. We see that company employees should not publish related Wikipedia articles, but we are not clear what type of editor might take an interest in our company. Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Lawyer.com is an online directory of lawyers in the United States, Canada, and the UK featuring lawyer and law firm profiles. The site includes a free lawyer matching service connecting users to lawyers in the desired legal practice area and geographic location. Lawyer.com' is headquartered in Basking Ridge, Somerset County, New Jersey.

History

The website began development in 2008 and officially launched in 2009. In 2014, the company acquired a $1.7 million office complex in Easton, PA for Lawyer.com expansion.

Features

The site's main function is a legal directory, featuring about 2 million lawyers across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Lawyer.com also offers a number of online marketing services to lawyers and legal professionals in North America and Europe, including online presence management, legal websites and search engine marketing.

Additionally, the company has partnered with various legal professionals and law groups, including BarBri, the American Bar Association, American Bankruptcy Institute, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and American Association for Justice. It also works with state bar associations and holds seminars offering continuing legal education credits in certain states, including New Jersey and Missouri.

Awards

In 2014 and 2015, Lawyer.com was selected in the top 50 of NJBIZ's Best Places to Work in NJ.

Bitcoin

As of July 2015, Lawyer.com is the first major player in the legal services industry to accept Bitcoin as a form of payment.

Wikipedia Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lawyer.com

Wiki Reference 1: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/somerset-county/2015/08/13/lawyercom-hosts-annual-summer-olympics/31645097/

Wiki Reference 2: http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/easton/index.ssf/2014/12/internet-business_incubator_pl.html

Wiki Reference 3: http://www.njbiz.com/article/20150506/BPTWORKNJ/150509885/congratulations-to-the-2015-best-places-to-work-in-new-jersey

Canada Article: http://thebulletin.ca/lawyer-coms-online-directory-goes-canadian/

Lawyer.com Accepts Bitcoin https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/online-lawyer-directory-lawyer-com-now-accepts-bitcoin-payment/

http://www.coindesk.com/press-releases/lawyer-com-%E2%80%8Bis%E2%80%8B-first-major-legal-%E2%80%8Bservices-company-to-accept-bitcoin-payments/

http://digitalmoneytimes.com/tag/gerry-gorman/

http://www.kitco.com/news/2015-08-04/Lawyer-com-is-First-Major-Legal-Services-Company-to-Accept-Bitcoin-Payments.html

Arbitration case request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sexist administrator and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, cross posted and didn't see your statement - thanks for commenting; ignore the above. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Olivier

Hi Necrothesp, is this edit ok? Can the title be used alongside the OM? Cassianto ^Talk 18:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not usual to use Kt as a postnominal - Knight Bachelor doesn't commonly take a postnom. His peerage effectively superseded his knighthood in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Cassianto ^Talk 01:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request declined

The Lady.de.Clare and Necrothesp arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

honours notes
Thank you for quality articles on English institutions and their people, following interests as diverse as Criminal Investigation Department, Florence Baptistery and Sara Mackmin, for precise categories and lists of awards, for updating according to honours notes, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 988th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Galkacyo International University

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Galkacyo International University requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Berek (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion and subcategories relisted

Hello. You participated in either the CFD discussion to delete the above category and its subcategories or the DRV discussion regarding those categories (or both). The result of the DRV was to relist the categories for discussion. This is a notification that they have now been relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General of the Armies

I've undo your move of the page for three reasons:

This page is a magnet for edit warring, so literally every little detail has to be discussed and I do mean every little detail.;
There was no move request filed for the page that I can see where the community had a chance to weigh in on the matter of a move;
There was no attempt to gain consensus through talk page discussions or an RFC.

Note that this does not automatically preclude the page being returned to the name you picked, provided that the community believes that you were right to move the page, but that has to be established in some sort of semi-formal method. If you have any questions or complaints, do voice them and I will do my best to address them. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"General of the Armies of the United States" is also a special rank and is written in its current form in every official document and in every source. This has been discussed and beat to death extensively over the years. I'm sure you meant no harm, its just that as was said above, that article has a drawn lot of edit warring and has has a turbulent history. -O.R.^Comms 12:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks etc.

Please stop your mass moving of titles and ranks into uncapitalized forms, if you don't know exactly what you are doing and without checking each case individually. You have for example moved German titles as well, where nouns are generally capitalized. Regards, Constantine ✍ 11:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do know exactly what I'm doing and I do check each case individually. You clearly don't, since it was decided long ago that all ranks should be in lower case only unless they are unique positions. Maybe you should check your own facts before you try to impose your own preferences on Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp: German ranks is a different story however. Nouns are to be capitalized. Kierzek (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is English Wikipedia and not German Wikipedia. See my response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Mass page move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know very well which WP this is. But "Oberleutnant zur See" is not translated into English, it is adopted into English from the German, or rather simply taken over from German. A translation would be "Senior lieutenant at sea", which of course should be uncapitalized. But when you take over a title wholesale, then you also keep the original language's capitalization. Similarly, in the German WP English terms and phrases taken over from English follow English rules, not German ones. Constantine ✍ 14:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously not aware that all ranks used to be capitalised on Wikipedia, including English ones. This is common practice in English. However, it was decided not to do so (against my own arguments). So we already have a situation where things are not done as they commonly are. It therefore makes no sense to single out a specific language and say "yes, this one should be different". And what about, say, General of the Artillery (Imperial Russia), which you've moved back? Looks like English to me, not Russian or German! So, you're also saying that anything even translated from another language should keep that language's capitalisation rules are you? Bizarre! You've also moved back the term Master of the Horse, which in this article is a generic term and not a specific title. Master of the Horse (United Kingdom) should be capitalised, but the generic term should not be. It's as generic as Prime minister. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the past and present practice of capitalizing ranks. I am also well aware that when you include a term, phrase, word, etc. from another language without translating it, you respect its own grammatical rules. This is elementary practice not just in English, but in every language I am aware of. This is the case here. You use a German term in its original form. On the "Master of the Horse" article, English practice is that when you have "the Horse" and "the Foot" as metonyms for "cavalry" and "infantry", they are capitalized. That is what "Master of the Horse" means, it is a position in charge of the cavalry, not of an individual horse. For the German-derived ranks "General of X", I am open to discussion, but this would prima facie be a question of detecting what the actual usage is, not imposing a blanket rule on all such cases. Constantine ✍ 14:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start the Master of the Horse was not the commander of the cavalry; he was the head of the stables! So, in fact, he was actually master of the horses! The singular is simply archaic usage. But even if he was the commander of the cavalry, it should only be capitalised when referring to a specific post in a specific country, not when referring to a variety of posts with the same or similar titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Companies delsort category

Hi Necrothesp: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 16 October 2015 for companies, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Award Category nominations

Hello,

I was confused by your comment here: "Any attempts to delete cats for meritorious awards would show clear systemic bias against non-English-speaking countries. Hasn't the recent trouble over these category deletions taught anyone anything?" The concerns most editors had was about large omnibus nominations for awards from multiple countries without context with minimal notifications. I have a nomination for a single award where I discuss the specific context and notified the creator and a WikiProject I picked (since no WikiProject claims the category.) I have no issue if you disagree with this particular nomination or my recent nomination for an American award.

What concerns me is the claim of bias. Are there any specific steps I'm not taking with the formatting of my nominations?

Thanks, RevelationDirect (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that deleting categories for significant Russian awards for merit and keeping categories for minor American awards for being in the wrong place at the wrong time could be seen as systemic bias against non-English-speaking countries. And we always try to avoid systemic bias. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Disability delsort category

Hi: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 19 October 2015 for Disability-related articles, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disability. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance with British honour

Hi Necrothesp, I've read some of your eloquent writing about the British honours system, and hope you can help me with something related. I'm trying to clean up article Nikhilesh Dutta, which among other things states:

For his contribution in his field, Barrister Dutta was conferred with the honourable title of "Sir" by Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II in 2007.

The cited source is this newsletter of the Indo-Pacific Federation of the The Theosophical Society. I would expect something like this to be widely reported, but oddly the only confirmation I've found (despite several hours poking around Wikipedia, the London Gazette, various Bangladeshi newspapers, etc.) is this Bahá'í World News Service piece, which reads like a speaker's bio supplied by Dutta.

So I have two questions. First, do you have any suggestions as to how I can convincingly prove or disprove this seemingly exceptional claim? Second, if it's true, does it constitute a "significant award or honor" that satisfies WP:ANYBIO or should I look further for evidence of notability? Thanks, Worldbruce (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, unless he also holds British citizenship or citizenship in another Commonwealth Realm (i.e. a country of which Queen Elizabeth II is head of state) then any knighthood awarded to him would be honorary and would entitle him to use the postnominal letters (probably KBE - Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire) but not the title - so he is not Sir Nikhilesh Dutta! It's not beyond the realms of possibility that he could have been awarded such an honour, but it was not recorded in the London Gazette. That doesn't mean he doesn't have it, however, as honorary awards frequently don't appear in the Gazette. If he does, then yes, it certainly satisfies WP:ANYBIO. I'll see if I can find any evidence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid I can't find any more than you! No Who's Who entry either, which we might generally expect for honorary knights. Just claims by him (or on his behalf), as far as I can see. Not to say he's not telling the truth, but it does seem odd that there's so little evidence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your expertise! I'll be at a proper university library next week and will have another go at searching with their tools. If I can't find a better source I'll probably move the claim from the article to its talk page pending verification. The article has numerous problems, and on close inspection some of the other claims of significance are overblown, so I've got my work cut out for me. Worldbruce (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Parker (Royal Navy officer, born 1786)

Hi - Thanks for your excellent work better disambiguating Royal Navy officers. But should Hyde Parker (Royal Navy officer, born 1786) not be Hyde Parker (Royal Navy officer, born 1784)? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course correct. Must have been tired! I've moved it. Thanks for spotting it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Great. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Massey (SAS commander)

Hi Necrothesp, I noted your recent amendment to the article as you state that a Brigadier is not a general. I am not a specialist in British Army ranks but did note in the London Gazette indecies that there are 6300+ references to that rank where it is recorded as Brigadier-General which left me confused. Was the addition of the word a courtesy ? It just goes to show that we're never too old to learn something new. thanks R44Researcher1944 (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was Brigadier-General until 1922, when it was abolished. When it was resurrected in 1928 it was as Brigadier, which is not considered a general officer rank in the British Army, although considered equivalent to brigadier-generals in other countries and using the same NATO rank code. You can see a summary here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Paget (Puritan Mminister)

Thanks for moving this page. It makes much more sense. I wrote it some time ago and regretted the title as soon as I'd posted it. It makes particularly good sense as I recently renamed his brother's page in line with this. Sjwells53 (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's usually preferable to avoid dates in favour of occupations if at all possible. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhigram, Arunachal Pradesh

You have done great job, and resurrected a long-dead article. Awesome!

		Cookies!
		MarkYabloko 14:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better![reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John McLure

It seems a little odd to me to call John McLure (sea captain) a "sea captain"; he captained riverboats. "Ship captain" perhaps? Or, what was wrong with "West Virginia" as a distinguishing phrase, unless someone is going to write an article on his uncle of the same name? Brianyoumans (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I've moved it. But the problem with using "West Virginia" as a disambiguator is that he wasn't a West Virginia! Disambiguators should reflect what someone did, not where they came from. This is clear in the naming guidelines (WP:NCPDAB). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what the policy is, I would be happy with a move away from John McLure (West Virginia). Perhaps "riverboat captain"? Brianyoumans (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir James Cory, 1st Baronet

Just curious to know how you decided Sir James Cory, 1st Baronet was known as simply Herbert. I can't see him referred to as Herbert in any of the current sources. Sionk (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who, in which he's listed as "CORY, Sir (James) Herbert", a clear indication that he used his middle name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Army versus...

Growing up as a kid in the UK, I've always understood that "the British Army" (or just "the army") referred generally to the whole of the armed forces, and all branches. Traditionally, the separate branches have been referred to as navy, airforce and infantry. Obviously also artillery, "of foot", cavalry etc as well. Perhaps within the military itself, the distinction is made differently to the way the ordinary civilian sees it. Or have we simply adopted American nomenclature, as we have with so many other things in recent decades?

Anyway, thanks for your help in determining the best fitting title for the US hand signals article. :)

Is there an equivalent article for hand signals used within British military, out of curiosity? --98.122.20.56 (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's rubbish I'm afraid. The British Armed Forces are and always have been the whole lot and that's always been our term for them; it's most certainly not an Americanism. The individual elements (each an individual service and not just a branch) are the Royal Navy, the British Army and the Royal Air Force. The infantry are merely the foot combat branch of the Army, as they are anywhere else in the world. The Army consists of a lot more than just the infantry. America tends to use the term "the military" to refer to what we call "the armed forces", "the forces" or "the services", and that usage is growing within Britain (traditionally in the British forces "military" as an adjective only applied to the Army; hence the senior administrative officers of the three services being the Naval Secretary, the Military Secretary and the Air Secretary, but now it generally applies to the whole of the forces). I can't imagine anyone would used "the army" to refer to the whole lot and I've honestly never heard anyone do so, including civilians. I can't believe you haven't heard the term "the forces"? It's been the commonest term used in Britain by both civilians and military personnel for at least a century. Hence Vera Lynn being "the Forces' Sweetheart"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krekenava Basilica

You removed Krekenava basilica from basilica list saying there was no evidence it actually had this title, so I dug up some materials. As the name of the church in lithuanian is the easiest to find they are in lithuanian. Five minutes, no pain and results: [10]; [11], page 31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melilac (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've readded it. Although note it doesn't appear on the main source for these things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Gillies

Hi, I see you moved the article on John Gillies from page title with (medical doctor) to on with (physician). I agree with changing from medical doctor to a shorter article name. He is a fellow of a college of physicians (RGPE) but he is also a fellow of RCGP. He is better know for his professional life as a general medical practitioner. I have moved the article to John Gillies (doctor) as I feel that is probably more in keeping with this. I hope this explains the logic involved here but I'm happy to discuss this further if needed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drchriswilliams: No problem. Either is fine. I actually prefer "doctor" as well, but I know how Americans can take issue with it not being specific enough. Personally I've never seen the point of "medical doctor", since people with non-medical doctorates aren't usually referred to as "doctors" in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

College of Applied Science, Thamarassery (January 2006)

Last June you indefinitely fully-protected this page.

One of the two accounts that was pushing a POV stopped editing at the end of June. The other was blocked at the end of June.

Please consider reducing the protection to pending-changes or semi-protection (or both) and putting an expiration date on it (I suggest no more than a year - if there is no attempted abuse during that time then let it expire).

Also, I have put a {{editprotected}} request on the article's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regimental Police

About 5 months ago you indefinitely edit- and move-protected this article.

Please consider reducing the edit protection to pending-changes or semi-protection (or both) and putting an expiration date on it (I suggest no more than 1 year - if there is no attempted abuse during that time then let it expire).

Also, please add some form of {{pp}} and/or {{pp-move}} to the top of the page if you do not remove the protections entirely. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gordon Banks

Happy New Year!

After your work which I was content with on my profile our old friend Rhumidian has come in several times - on Christmas Day! - and I wonder if you could look. I am wondering if he is attempting to leave direct links to is own biased editing which you did not approve of. Seems odd too that this was all done on Christmas Day. Thanks86.139.242.30 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reverted the edit he made. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Salvador (disambiguation)

Please read WP:MOSDAB. It was correct before. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up about your ownership issues, but you should probably take a look at the edit summary and the guidelines yourself.

Yeah some of the entries could not be piped (even though it reads and flows much better this way), but the sections and treatment of the several Salvadorian entries, as well as the lead gloss, are all perfectly correct and shouldn't be reverted. It also needs the link to Sao Salvador in Brazil, given that it was formerly referenced in English by the Spanish form of its name. —

Llywelyn II

14:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LlywelynII: Now, you really must know this isn't true. Where does it say that more than one item should be linked on a line on a dab page? Where does it say that entries should be piped. Take another look and, incidentally, give up the petulant rubbish about ownership. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reread what I wrote. The letter of the law is to not use pipes, so there's not much to stop you from enforcing that even though WP:IAR more than covers changing

San Salvador (band), a band...

to

San Salvador, a band...

The lead is for all major uses and doesn't fall under the one-link-per-line guideline. (The proper entries are limited to one per line, if I recall.) Certainly nonsensical and overlong section headings should be avoided in favor of standard sections such as #Places.

I always AGF. The bit about ownership is rubbish to the extent that you avoid reverting improvements to the page because you think "it was correct the way I had it". —

Llywelyn II

14:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I reverted because of your piping and multiple links on a single line, which are clearly contrary to the MOS, not because I have any claims to ownership; so you obviously don't AGF. The lead in a dab page is no different from the other lines: no piping and no multiple links. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

On a point of information: not quite everyone is listed by their full name in the Army List and Who's Who. Charles Sim Bremridge Parsons is just given as "Sir Charles Parsons" in Who Was Who, so I moved the article to its current title on that basis. I could find other examples.

I'm sorry, but I think all your recent moves to the (British Army officer, born [or sometimes died] xxxx) format are based on a mistaken interpretation of WP:NCPDAB. The guideline reads "Where the disambiguation can't be resolved in a straightforward manner by such more specific qualifiers [...] date of birth can be added". For British Army officers there are any number of more specific qualifiers that could be used—rank: Lord Charles Manners (British Army major-general); service arm: John Le Marchant (British Army cavalry officer); regiment or corps: John Smith (Royal Artillery officer)—without having to resort to using the date of birth.

I've long been unhappy with the date of birth and death section of WP:NCPDAB but have never yet summoned the energy to start a discussion about it. Opera hat (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because Wikipedia is an ongoing project and not every article has as yet been spotted. In what way is branch or rank a better qualifier than year of birth? If the years are not very similar then someone looking for a general is far more likely to know that he was operating in the early 19th century or the early 20th century than what branch of service he was commissioned into. Equally, rank is pretty pointless. To use your Lord Charles Manners example, every general was once a major-general, not to mention the fact that "general" can mean brigadier-general, major-general and lieutenant-general as well as "full" general! I personally think WP:NCPDAB is absolutely fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woodford County High School Woodford Green

Hi,

   I hope you can help me?
      You have written an article regarding Woodford County High School Woodford Green

"The building was formerly a hospital, in which Florence Nightingale worked, as well as a means of accommodation for Winston Churchill during the World War II. It was also once owned as a house, owned by the Warner family, who also held ownership of many properties in Walthamstow."

May I ask where I can find the information that confirms Florence Nightingale worked at this hospital?

adamkingdon@hotmail.com m:07825759176

I would be most grateful for any help or assistance you may offer, thank you, kind regards Adam Kingdon.

Adam Kingdon (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have not contributed anything to this article other than moving it to a more appropriate title. I have no knowledge of the school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your page moves

Hi Necrothesp

I am writing to ask you to please consider desisting from undiscussed page moves.

I see 4 problems:

There doesn't seem to be much scrutiny before the moves
You seem to have some strong views on "correct" articles titles which are not always supported by guideline or policy, and sometimes seem perverse
The moves are usually done without an explanation, so other editors get no guide to your reasoning
You rarely do the necessary tidy-up work after page moves

Recent RM discussions seem to be showing little support for your preference for date-of-birth disambiguation. I was particularly surprised to see that at Talk:Edward Henry Clive you opened a new move request only 9 hours after another discussion closed. I see no sign of a WP:MOVEREVIEW or of a request to the closer of the previous discussion. That's WP:FORUMSHOPping.

I have just examined a sample of your recent move log, focusing on the topic areas which interest me. Here are some of the problems I see:

Henry Gates (MP): moved[12] by you on 20 January 2016 to Henry Gates (politician). I have reverted [13].
The new title is ambiguous with Henry Gates (Nova Scotia politician), which you might have spotted if you had updated the dab page so that new links pointed to the current title. I have restored the article to Henry Gates (MP), which is succinct, unambiguous, and the most likely search term.
Henry Bellingham (politician) moved[14] to Henry Bellingham (Norfolk MP) on 31 December 2015. Good move, to an unambiguous title, but the dab page at Henry Bellingham was not updated, and the ambiguous Henry Bellingham (politician) remains directed to the Norfolk Mp rather than to the dab page.
John Bertrand Watson moved[15] to Bertrand Watson. Nothing in the article says that was his commonname. The dab page at John Watson was not updated.
Basil Brooke (Royal Navy admiral) moved[16] on 29 December 2015‎ to Basil Brooke (Royal Navy officer, born 1895). The DOB was used contrary to WP:NCPDAB, because the previous title was unambiguous. Again, the dab page was not updated. I have reverted.
From 7–11 December, you moved over 90 baronets[17] from "Sir Foo Bar, nth Baronet" to "Foo Bar" or "Foo Middlename Bar". Fine in principle, so long as full checks for ambiguity have been done ... but but.
I see a batch of 8 moves in 15 minutes from 14:11 to 14:35 on 11 December; another of 18 moves in 43 minutes from 13:01 to 13:44 on 11 December; another of 15 moves in 29 minutes from 16:07 on 9 December 2015 to 16:36 on 9 December 2015. And so on. (Note that in each I have excluded the moves of associated talk pages from the totals).
That average of barely 120 seconds between moves leaves little time for ambiguity-checking ... and considering how you didn't do the easy ambiguity-checking for Henry Gates, I think it's fair to question whether you did it here. You were mostly doing a lot of other editing at the same time, so not all of that 120 seconds was available for ambiguity-checking ... and really, an experienced editor like you should not be leaving a contribs page like this one[18] from 11 December. 100 edits, of which 53 were manual and only 1 edit summary other than those auto-generated.

A similar pattern is repeated in the samples I checked from previous contribs, such as [19]:

Yet more paid-fire baronet-moving
No tidyup after moving James Stronge (politician) to James Stronge (Mid-Armagh MP) -- good move, not completed
John McLure (West Virginia) moved[20] to John McLure (sea captain) then[21] John McLure (steamer captain). The first move accompanied by the note "not a West Virginia", which is very odd: the dab just asserts that he was from there, not that he was a "West Virgina". He was also notable as a boatbuilder and businessman, so your new dabs may not be as helpful.

Please can you think about this?

I did not discuss any of this with any other editor before posting, but I am pinging User:Opera hat, whose concerns I share at Talk:Edward Henry Clive#Requested_move_6_January_2016--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your points.

I almost always examine things very thoroughly before moves. I may have failed to do so on a few occasions, but these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
Which are these opinions I have on correct article titles that are not supported by guidelines or are perverse?
Most of my moves are done with explanation. A few may not be if they're blindingly obvious, but most obviously are.
Since redirects are perfectly acceptable, large-scale tidying-up work is not really a necessity - the disambiguation page is still going to redirect to the same article after a move. "and really, an experienced editor like you should not be leaving a contribs page like this one[7] from 11 December. 100 edits, of which 53 were manual and only 1 edit summary other than those auto-generated." Are you reading the same page that I am? There are loads of edit summaries! Most say "only one here", which seems to be a reasonable explanation for a move of a baronet page that has a lot of extraneous disambiguation info in the title! I can only assume you didn't notice them. The edits that don't have summaries are invariably marked as minor and are spelling corrections and the like. I think you should probably check properly before making incorrect allegations.

You will notice that absolutely nobody contributed to the first Clive RM. This should never have been closed and moved with no contributions, especially since it was opened and closed over the Christmas/New Year period. The title to which it was moved clearly contravenes guidelines.

To answer your specific points:

I thought I had checked Henry Gates. I obviously missed the other politician. A failure to spot, not a failure to check.
As you say, the move was a good one.
Almost every reference says that Watson was known as Bertrand. As the guidelines say, there is no need to explain in an article that someone was known by a different name if that is clear from the article title.
Basil Brooke (Royal Navy admiral) may not be ambiguous, but Basil Brooke (Royal Navy captain) certainly is, since the former was obviously once a captain too. Rank is actually a very bad way to disambiguate, as most people with a knowledge of military history would tell you. Is someone who comes across the first Brooke when he was a captain (or more junior officer) and looks him up going to know that he later became an admiral? Is someone who comes across the second Brooke going to know that he didn't? However, the era is which they lived does make it more obvious which is which. I prefer consistency and believe this is better for Wikipedia.
Whatever you may think, I can assure you I did check the baronets for ambiguity. I've been at this a long time. I know what I'm doing. Maybe as a fellow experienced editor you should give me the benefit of the doubt?

The John McLure move was also following guidelines. In general a disambiguator should say what a person was, and this has actually been supported over many RMs, where similar geographical disambiguators have been changed to occupational ones. The second move was on the suggestion of someone who had worked on the article as a better disambiguator.

Date of birth disambiguation is clearly mandated in the guidelines where there is not another suitable disambiguator. Middle name disambiguation is clearly suggested not to be a good idea. So I'm not wholly sure where your comments in this vein are coming from.

I hope (and assume, since you have been here a long time as well and I think you and I have frequently agreed) that you didn't mean to be patronising, but I'm afraid to say this is the way I think much of your message comes across. "please consider desisting from undiscussed page moves." I beg your pardon? You know as well as I do that I am not required to discuss every page move I make, any more than any other editor is. Every move I have made fits in with our naming guidelines; the fact that not everyone agrees with the guidelines (as you and Opera Hat have made perfectly clear on the Clive RM) is not actually relevant, since they have been agreed as guidelines. Yes, I make mistakes occasionally. Everybody does. But that's no call to suggest that I should discuss everything I do as though I am an incompetent editor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Nigeria Writing Contest

Hello Necrothesp, and happy Wikipedia @ 15. This is to notify you of Wiki Loves Nigeria Writing Contest organized by the Wikimedia User Group Nigeria to commiserate the 15th anniversary of Wikipedia. The contest will start on 28 January 2016 and end on 29 February 2016. Please help to suggest articles on notable Nigeria-related topic here and if you like to be part of the jury, add your name here. Thanks for your participation. Warm regards Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Short pages monitor

You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Short pages monitor#Need to define and possibly rethink this template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Worsley (explorer) has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Necrothesp. Henry Worsley (explorer), an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 01:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Richard

Could you comment here if possible? Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Kearney

Opinion would be appreciated on deletion discussion. Thank you Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Kearney (4th nomination) Somethingwickedly (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Henry Worsley (explorer)

On 23 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Henry Worsley (explorer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Henry Worsley attempted to complete the first solo and unaided crossing of the Antarctic, but died with only 30 miles to go? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Worsley (explorer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of your edit and its reference?

Hi Necrothesp, could you please confirm one of your edits and its reference from several years ago, but deleted November 2014? ARTICLE = List of German field marshals: EDIT = 19:36, 6 November 2006‎ Necrothesp (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,501 bytes) (+171)‎ . . (→‎Imperial Germany: added Edward, Prince of Wales). REFERENCE = The Times, 28 June 1902. Thanks Stephen. Stephen2nd (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to the granting of the rank to Edward, Prince of Wales? To quote The Times of 28 June 1902, p.5: "Thus King Edward, then Prince of Wales, was appointed a Field-Marshal by the Emperor William I on the occasion of his visit to Berlin in 1883 for the silver wedding of the German Crown Prince and Princess..." I got the date wrong when I added it, as (due to smudging) it looks like 1888 in the paper, but on checking, the silver wedding was actually in 1883. Not sure why it was removed though, considering a reference had been provided. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the details, this photo confirms the 1883 date. I cannot find any WP references to Wilhelm I doing this, the wedding anniversary, or the Prince visiting Berlin in 1883. But there are references to Edward VII wearing the uniform in the 1910's. Stephen. Stephen2nd (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The silver wedding was definitely in 1883 (since they were married in 1858), and since Crown Princess Victoria was Edward's sister it would not be surprising if he did visit them on the occasion. The Times is usually considered a reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Robert Douglas, 3rd Baronet

Your contribution would be welcome to suggest a new title for this article. Given our previous discussions I don't imagine you'd approve of Robert Andrews Mackenzie Douglas, which was my first thought! Would you be happy with moving it back to Robert Douglas (New Zealand politician)? Opera hat (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas of Glenbervie (1831) is the correct title for the baronetcy: I presume accuracy & clarity are at the forefront of most Wikipedians' minds as to style the 3rd & 6th baronet (aforementioned)? L'honorable (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. the Douglas baronets need further clarity, let's liaise.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'honorable 23:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. My apologies for not signing off properly, and I hope this is not getting in the way of getting the facts straight for Wiki? L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPPS. who is signing me off - me or my talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'honorable (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

Greetings! I proposed a move at Talk:Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy (moving it to Julian Byng, per WP:NCPEER and WP:COMMONNAME). I would like to hear your opinion on it!--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tripe disambiguation

Hi,

As 'tripe' is meat and also 'nonsense talk', these two meanings should not be written in one line. To make this exactly and clearly recognisable is the task, a disambiguation overview has to do --bkb (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second meaning is simply a colloquial derivation from the first. Since it is a dicdef and not really encyclopaedic it makes more sense to put them on the same line. You could put it as one of the bullet points if you wanted, but not on a separate line as it was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venkatraman Ramakrishnan

Is Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan′s request not to be styled “Sir” in Wikipedia legitimate? I personally compare it to the case of Julia King, Baroness Brown of Cambridge, even though this should better be characterised “anti-arrogant”--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tripe : Neat separation of different meanings

Hi, As 'tripe' is meat and also 'nonsense talk', these two meanings should not be written in one line. To make this exactly and clearly recognisable is the task, a disambiguation overview has to do. bkb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did not see Your answer above --bkb (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Highways

National Highway 44 (India) (new numbering) and Talk:National Highway 65 (India) (new numbering) needs to be moved to National Highway 44 (India) and National Highway 65 (India). Earlier you moved one at National Highway 16 (India).--Vin09 (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: For move of page to National Highway 26 (India) (new numbering) to National Highway 26 (India).--Vin09 (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Ward, DBE

Cannot be called Dame, not a British subject; only received honorary damehood. Quis separabit? 17:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. You really don't need to explain the British honours system to me! However, the fact remains she is often referred to in reliable sources as Dame Genevieve Ward! Before the last few decades it was common practice to refer to even people with honorary knighthoods using the title. The strict "only citizens of Commonwealth Realms can use titles" rule is a relatively recent thing. The DNB calls her Dame Genevieve Ward, as does The Times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gifford Stower

I am the article creator, so I don't think it would be proper for me to add to the "list of discussions" - but Stower was an Argentine, so you might want to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Argentina also. Narky Blert (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: As article creator you are perfectly free to add an AfD to an appropriate list of discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Medal for the Defence of Leningrad

Hi, I'm Otto, the creator of Category:Recipients of the Medal for the Defence of Leningrad that you have deleted. I just want to hear your reasonable arguments for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Sheva2 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary, it has already been deleted once at CfD and can therefore be deleted again if recreated. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 20. It's merely a service medal, nothing more. Awarded to everyone who took part in a specific campaign. We do not have categories for these, only for medals that were awarded for merit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not so recent move

Hello.

In July 2008, you moved Francis Ganzoni, 1st Baron Belstead to John Ganzoni, 1st Baron Belstead with the edit summary "known as John". I have collected some sources from google (with some examples below), and they are divided between Francis and John. (The number of sources are not necessarily indicative.)

Francis:

John:

What source did you have for the move? Can one be sure that John is the name he went by?

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dictionary of National Biography lists him as "Ganzoni, (Francis) John Childs, first Baron Belstead". As does the Oxford Index, which is derived from it, which you cite above as listing him as Francis. Since this is the only source (other than Hansard, which is not especially accurate) that refers specifically to him as opposed to his son, I think we can take it as more reliable. The Times referred to him during his lifetime as John Ganzoni 151 times (and never as Francis Ganzoni). I think we can take this as pretty conclusive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. (I thought the parentheses represented the name he went by, as there are two other forenames [including Childs, which is his mother's maiden name], but it's apparently the other way around.) Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Parentheses around names indicate a person used the first name not in parentheses. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Lane

Do you have a source that gives her name as "Roma Barrack OBE"? The London Gazette here gave her name at the time of her honour as Carla Lane, and therefore she would be known as Carla Lane OBE. I know that normally her real name might be placed first in the article, but in this case it seems to me to be far preferable to have the order as it was - that is, "Carla Lane OBE (born Roma Barrack....). I'll raise it on the article talk page if you prefer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact very common these days for the LG to use the pseudonym rather than the real name when listing honours. "Born Roma Barrack" implies that was no longer actually her name; we have to be very careful of implying such things in an encyclopaedia. Since she had apparently not legally changed it, this was not the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Bachelor (Kt.)

Um, I think it is used as a postnomial, as per

Like other knights, Knights Bachelor are styled "Sir". Since they are not knights of any order of chivalry, there is no post-nominal associated with the award.
When the style "Sir" is awkward or incomplete due to a subsequent appointment, recipients may sometimes use the word "Knight" or "Kt" (note the lowercase 't', which distinguishes it from "KT", the post-nominals of a Knight of the Thistle) after their name in formal documents to signify that they have the additional honour. This style is often adopted by Knights Bachelor who are also peers, baronets or knights of the various statutory orders, such as Sir William Boulton, Bt, Kt, or Laurence Olivier, Baron Olivier of Brighton, Kt.

Yours, Quis separabit? 13:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Very rarely seen, very old-fashioned, and long established as not used on Wikipedia! Note the "in formal documents" in your own citation above. Wikipedia is not a formal document; it is an encyclopaedia. As it says, "there is no post-nominal associated with the award"! Just as we do not use OBE after an individual has received a KBE, we do not use a knighthood after an individual has received a peerage. One supersedes the other. This is long-established practice both on and off Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Had to mention this

Per your comment [22] here and at the other article with a similar RM, it is an insult to horsemen to say that a horseman is "anyone who rides a horse." No. It's a term of art, and not simply limited to riders (some horseman drive horses, some who are older simply direct their training and work from the ground). To be a horseman is a term that is earned and reflects an acknowledgement of acquired skill and knowledge. So, while you may be right about the problem with the disambiguator, your reasoning is inaccurate. ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 23:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the Oxford English Dictionary, the first definition of horseman: "One who rides on horseback, a rider". So no, no insult intended or actual. In common English language usage, a horseman is indeed anyone who rides a horse. In the horsey world it may mean something more specialised (as do many common terms in specialist worlds), but my use of it was the normal English one which most of our readers will understand. We are not writing for specialists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can't argue much with the OED (but what are the second and subsequent definitions?) The phrasing, "anyone who rides a horse" was not the best tone. I actually do see your concerns with the dab, but I also am not sure of a solution. The realty is that in the race horse world "Horseman" often is shorthand for a trainer. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not saying there aren't other more specialised definitions; I'm just saying that's the first one, and it's very general. I think only someone involved in the racing world and used to its terminology would see my comment as at all insulting; other people would not and it was certainly not intended to be. Incidentally, in military history (one of my specialist fields), a "horseman" just meant a cavalryman (the third OED definition). There was no particular intimation of expertise; it just meant a bloke on the battlefield on horseback as opposed to one on foot. As I said, different fields, different meanings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, anyone in the horse world, generally. And like I say, I get it about how the disambiguator could be problematic, but the RM nominator is right that sometimes we do need a word for the people who wind up wearing many hats; I personally like just using middle initials or something, but the dab rules actually disfavor that... I guess a discussion of a solution should be done over at the RMs. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Highways

@Necrothesp: Earlier we had discussion at Talk:National Highway 26 (India). Later, another discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_roads#Indian_highway_numbers with another user based on the same issue. Could you comment on the WikiProject page. As a new user was moving many pages. The pages needs to be quickly sorted out to overcome future confusion.--Vin09 (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

There is a requested move at Talk:Ayşe Hafsa Sultan#Requested move 13 June 2016 on a page that you have edited in the past. You are invited to come to the talk page and give your input. OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine 02:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Molemo Maarohanye for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Molemo Maarohanye is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molemo Maarohanye until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refractoring at AfD

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melvin P. McCree, Bearcat refractor his original post and removed "non-metropolitan" to which I refer to in my "keep" post. I see that he changed it and add clarifying info. I returned that term, since I refered to it and with out I look like some idiot. So, I returned "non-metropolitan" stuck using strikeout wiki code as I understand should happen in talk page discussion when refactoring. He got snippy and returned it claiming: "you do not get to refactor other editors' comments to your own liking". The refactoring that he did makes it look like I misquoted him in effect misrepresenting me (for supposedly misquoting him) per WP:TPNO. Other editors should not have to wade through history to find out that I did quote him correctly. How should this be handled? Spshu (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Franciscans has been nominated for discussion

Category:Franciscans, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 15:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John: What on God's Earth are you talking about? What is this unreferenced material about living people? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was a mistake. Please do not repeat it. We cannot source contentious material about living people from tabloids, per WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Nothing contentious here. It's a sourced report in a newspaper of opinion, not fact. What exactly do you find contentious in it? "This was a mistake. Please do not repeat it"! My, my, but that's arrogant and patronising! Who exactly do you think you are? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually nothing further to add. I see you have been an admin for longer than I have, so you should be able to understand BLPSOURCES without my explaining it to you. I see too that you have never been blocked, and I believe I have never previously blocked a fellow admin. Let's try to keep both records intact, shall we? --John (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand it perfectly well, thank you. Frankly, since I didn't add the paragraph to the article I'm not really bothered enough to argue about it. However, I would suggest that keeping a civil tongue and trying not to throw your weight around may be a good idea. There is no need whatsoever for the arrogant attitude you adopted in your previous post. As administrators, we make suggestions; we do not peremptorily issue orders or make patronising comments. You should know that. Oh, and thinly veiled threats to block me? Really? For what? I'll repeat: Who exactly do you think you are? Don't bother answering that, by the way. It was rhetorical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of university departments

Hi Necrothesp. I hope you're well. As an expert on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, do you have a sense of how the notability of university departments has tended to be assessed in deletion discussions? I stumbled across Stockholm University Department of Human Geography earlier, and wasn't sure what course of action to take (tag as unsourced, redirect to Stockholm University, nominate for deletion, etc.). Any thoughts on this? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, unless they're highly notable, individual faculties and departments are not kept. This one doesn't seem to be especially well-known, but I'll readily admit that I'm not an expert on Swedish universities so I'd probably AfD it and get a wider opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - have done. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murdered by My Boyfriend

Hey there. I just wanted to let you know I undid your edit to Murdered by My Boyfriend, since I can't find a source stating that the case was the inspiration for the drama—I see plenty of rumour, but nothing concrete. If you can point me to a source stating the link I'll be happy to re-add. — foxj 01:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read the details of the case. They are absolutely identical to the film, even down to the method of assault. There is no chance whatsoever that this was not the inspiration. But, if you think it benefits Wikipedia by deleting something that's clearly true and is useful information then I'm not going to argue, as I agree there are no definite sources. Personally I think sometimes common sense should prevail over dogma, but since Wikipedia seems sadly to be increasingly bound by dogma then so be it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has always, always relied on reliable sources, not original research (or indeed, what is "true"). There's a whole policy on this. — foxj 13:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of all Wikipedia's policies, thanks. One of them is called WP:IAR! Funnily enough, the one policy that is frequently ignored by those who love quoting policies. But never mind. I must confess, I did wonder how long it would be until somebody quoted WP:V to me re this edit. And you obliged... It's a great pity there's no apparent reliable source linking it to the real murder, as it's patently obvious to anyone with an ounce of analytical mind that that's the source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Scotland

Can't be bothered to argue with you. Ironman1104 (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. But please note it is usual practice to categorise all places someone lived for any length of time as a child. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be pompous. And please note that "English" is not a nationality, whether or not born in the W indies. Ironman1104 (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what possible way was that pompous? No, it's not a nationality. So what? Should it not be added to the article of someone who is clearly English in every way except the country of her birth? Maybe you'd like to suggest to all the Scottish and Welsh editors here that they shouldn't add those descriptions and categories to articles! I can assure you that you'd get very short shrift. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schools deletion sorting issue

Regarding your frustration about people posting in the wrong sections at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools, I have just realised that the "edit this page" link in the instructions takes editors to the section on schools. That may well be the reason why other articles keep getting posted in that section. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that. It may be the case, but that's no excuse not to read the page! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree, but it might be that if we modify that link, we find we get a lot fewer misplaced entries. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-noms

If you look at the section below (Formatting Post-noms) the bit you removed is describing the standard. eg it should be written as Necrothesp, VC OBE MBE. Rather than Necrothesp, VC, OBE, MBE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong and I have changed it. This was added to the guidelines recently without discussion. It is never done in real life. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie

Hey Necrothesp, you are invited to participate in the move discussion at Talk:Kylie. Thanks. TheKaphox (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thanks!

Hi, thanks for not being a pompous dick (re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gawad_sa_Kaunlaran). KDS4444 (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I clearly wasn't, you're welcome! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Atlantic wonderings (unrelated to move discussion)

Hello, Necrothesp. Coming from a UK perspective, I was just curious (as a side question, in no way related to the move discussion) whether you agree with some other British editors, like Pincrete, that "The term [i.e. mid-Atlantic accent] in the UK, especially of people in broadcasting or entertainment, was used to describe a sometimes seemingly conscious adoption of US sounds, intonation etc." Does the term have that connotation in the UK... i.e., of being an accent used by some Brits as well as by some Americans? Obviously, the current article speaks of it specifically as being an American type of accent, which the sources indicate. (I can't seem to find much info online to confirm Pincrete's above quotation.) Wolfdog (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog: Absolutely. As it says in the second paragraph of the article, it's used to refer to the speech of people, especially broadcasters, who consciously or subconsciously adopt features of the American accent, and to our ears therefore sound faintly ridiculous, as though they're deliberately trying to be "cool" (in exactly the same way that some Americans adopt features of the English accent). -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Necrothesp. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NgYShung ^huh? 09:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]