Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:39, 26 April 2017

George V WWI campaign medals

I notice you deleted the mention of the king's WWI campaign medals, sourced to the Complete Peerage. I take your point about 'honours awarded to oneself are not really honours' but that was far from my mind. I believed I was correcting a noticeable omission, as he did wear the decorations (witness several post WWI full dress uniform pictures) and I thought their presence on his chest and in record should be acknowledged. However it would be dismissive to consider it was a case of appropriating campaign medals for himself ex officio. Those three medals were not all the medals awarded for service in WWI, and note there were other campaigns taking place in his reign that qualified for the Army and Navy General Service Medals and India General Service Medals and Africa General Service Medals - but he did not award them to himself (rightly so as he never visited, let alone served in, these further flung campaigns). (Did George VI did similar in WWII?)Cloptonson (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Abdul Karim

Thank you for correcting some of my incorrect edits on this page (especially nowiki, as I misread that). I wanted to let you know the only thing I changed back was "platonic relationship" into "relationship". I explained my reasoning on the talk page - I'm not trying to assert that their relationship was in fact sexual, just that we don't actually know. To have it say "platonic" (or sexual, for that matter) in the lead would seem to insinuate information that we simply do not know today. Just wanted to let you know so that you didn't think I was simply trying to revert some of your change backs :) Garchy (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There are various other formulas that can be used, such as "The Queen's maternal affection for Karim led to friction.." or cut it altogether: "The other members of the Royal Household distrusted Karim and felt themselves to be superior to him." DrKay (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw your second edit summary after I had replied on the talk page - your argument about modern audiences does make sense. While "platonic" may not seem necessary to me I can understand where not having it may add to confusion with the reading audience. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Garchy (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hi. Recently I found these four images (1; 2; 3; 4) of some Turkish actors that have been uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. The main problem is that I think none of them are free, and I wished to nominate them for deletion but I couldn't as I'm not familiar with how things work there. Would you please explain how these files can be deleted? Keivan.f 23:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I usually use the "Nominate for deletion" link on the left-hand side. DrKay (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Duchess of Edinburgh

Hi. I was going to create "Template:Duchesses of Edinburgh", but I realized that you had previously deleted a former version of it in November 2016. Per instructions I have to contact you first to understand what the reason was. Was it only because it was created by a blocked user who had violated the policies? Did you have any other reason for deleting it? Keivan.f 21:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It was done as a part of a mass delete under WP:G5. I don't think there's any problem with re-creation. DrKay (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do not waste the time of other editors

Refusing a YouTube link because it contains copyrighted content is completely valid. I have no problem with that. But removing links for spurious reasons and then changing your mind over the reasoning just wastes other people's time. Reissgo (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind. DrKay (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

First you said you should not keep the link because it was to a commercial site.

This was a nonsense reason to zap the link.

Then you said you should not keep the link because the capitalisation was incorrect.

This was a fixable reason to zap the link.

Then you said you should not keep the link because the YouTube video broke copyright

Reissgo (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I know. I stand by all those comments. The link is commercial. The link does mis-capitalize common words. The link does break copyright. Hence, the link should not go in. DrKay (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

George III's Jubilee

You reverted my claim that Royal Jubilees began with George III, on the basis that two earlier monarchs had clocked-up fifty years. But did they celebrate jubilees? The Wiki page on jubilees states that it all started with George. Valetude (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I see no claim there that it was the first, and it would contradict other sources: Westminster Abbey (translation of tomb inscription) and Mark Ormrod (historian) in History Today: "Edward III (1327-77) has a claim to being the earliest English ruler to celebrate his golden jubilee publicly" and his book Edward III: "In 1362, as part of the jubilee celebrations, the crown responded to a request for a change in the spoken language of the law courts, and declared that in future proceedings should be undertaken not, as in the previous hundred years and more, in French, but in the native tongue of Englishmen." DrKay (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

James, Viscount Seven

Hi do you think that Viscount Severn should have this:

• James Windsor, Viscount Severn

Like:

• Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster
• George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews

You could see where I am coming from though, but it's Earl of Wessex's children SHOULD have princely styles under Letters Patent 1917 but when Viscount Seven has children they would be called, Lord George Windsor. Mr Hall of England (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It would match his sister and there are sources that support such a name: https://www.debretts.com/the-royal-family/james-windsor/. However, I closed the last requested move so am not comfortable expressing a direct opinion either in support or against a new requested move, if you chose to launch one. DrKay (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought I would run it past to you as I don't want to be blocked for redirecting articles.Mr Hall of England (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It you want to move it, you will need to follow the process at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. DrKay (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you do it on my behalf please because I don't want to be blocked.Mr Hall of England (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Junior

"This has been the subject of immense (and inane) discussion". I can well imagine that the discussion was inane and I won't waste any of my time on it. In England, we use "junior" or "Jr". Don't reply. Jack | 20:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The long and involved discussion of this issue demonstrated beyond doubt that there is no difference between varieties of English, whether British or American, on this matter. DrKay (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Queen Victoria

With regard to the captions in Queen Victoria, and your recent edit, of course sentence fragments need not end with a period (but see MOS:CAPFRAG for an exception to that rule). However, in my opinion, two sentence fragments one above the other, each on its own line, look awful as a caption, and in fact are normally not seen in Misplaced Pages articles. Whenever possible, the actual title of the painting should be used, in italics, and should come first, followed by what it is (painting, drawing, etching, etc.), the artist or photographer's name, and then the year, all separated by commas. That information can end in a period if a sentence follows it. Alternatively, the name of the artist can go first, which places more emphasis on the artist than on the title or subject of the work. See the example caption at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Example image and caption. See also the captions at Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Édouard Manet, Henri-Edmond Cross, Vincent van Gogh, Catherine the Great, Olav V of Norway, Frederick VI of Denmark.  – Corinne (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Current discussion of Quality assessment at Village Pump

There is a discussion at Village Pump (policy) that assessment of WP:Quality assessment for A-Class, B-Class, C-Class and Start-Stub articles is long antiquated and of limited valued for future purposes of Misplaced Pages. As you are involved in the day-to-day listing and de-listing of articles from these classes to peer review status possibly you could take a glance at the discussion of comments here . ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

4th Duke of Portland

How do you suggest moving this page? I could not use the regular system as the Cavendish-Scott-Bentinck page already existed. And a move is necessary and desirable as his name was not "William Bentinck"; he was born Cavendish-Bentinck. --Varavour (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. DrKay (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Royalty

See here where closer explicitly states it is for infobox person only. To remove the parameter on any other template you need to either start an RFC to apply to *all* templates (excepting religion) or start an RFC at each individual biographical template. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

82.132.233.74

• 82.132.233.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi,

Can you keep an eye on this IP's edits? They've been disruptive once again after your previous recent block. It also might be continued block evasion by the same user as before. Thanks. 172.58.40.144 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES

Hi DrKay,

I think you're misreading the style guide. I understand your view re: "The Duke of ***," because that is actually a way royalty is referenced. Like "The Queen." But no such tradition applies in the U.S. So I believe your revert on "U.S. Representative" without a name attached, is incorrect. Just as most users have applied the same standard in other cases where no actual name is attached, just the office or title. I believe that conforms to the style guide. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but cabinet secretaries' titles capitalize the word "secretary", as that is not a generic noun when used as part of the full title. So the lowercasing of his current title is incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:JOBTITLES, the standard is when the "correct formal title" is treated as a proper noun, not whether a noun is a "generic noun." So while the point is reasonable for "Secretary of the ****", the word "secretary" by itself, per the guideline, is a common noun: and as such, is not capitalized. The same applies for "representative" as that is not the correct formal title. Nor is "U.S. Representative." X4n6 (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi how are you, I have a couple of redirect requests:

• Hussein of Jordan to Hussein I of Jordan
• Ghazi of Iraq to Ghazi I of Iraq

What do you think? I understand to Viscount Windsor. Mr Hall of England (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hussein has been discussed twice before, so should only be moved after a move discussion at the article talk page as described at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. I've no particular opinion about Ghazi. DrKay (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think that Ghazi should be changed to Ghazi I of Iraq ASAP, but the only way Hussein I of Jordan will change is when his grandson assends to the throne as Hussein II of Jordan. Mr Hall of England (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Mr Hall of England (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

More redirects

I have another reidects for you to do on my behalf:

• List of heads of government of Grenada to Prime Minister of Grenada
• List of heads of government of Sierra Leone to Prime Minister of Sierra Leone

It would be better than what it is.Mr Hall of England (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree in this instance. Some of the heads of government have titles other than Prime Minister and it would be inconsistent with other article titles (which have the lists at one location and articles about the office at another).

Bookspammer IP

Regarding this edit, it's just one of several dozen articles where the IP editor added this particular book to the "Sources", "Further Reading" or similar sections. I left a warning on their talk page and the activity does not seem to be continuing.

What remains is cleaning it up. Would it be possible to rollback all of these edits in one fell swoop (the ones that haven't been undone already)? Is it complicated by the fact that a helpful bot followed many of the edits with a decapitalization of a section header? If there's no better way to do it, I'll undertake the effort to do them one-by-one.

Or you could tell me my assessment of this activity as bookspamming is wrong and I'll leave things be. — jmcgnh 05:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)