User talk:Jaguar/Archive 26

Your GA nomination of Oakhanger, Hampshire

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Oakhanger, Hampshire you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rodw -- Rodw (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Oakhanger, Hampshire

The article Oakhanger, Hampshire you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Oakhanger, Hampshire for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rodw -- Rodw (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, GA Cup competitors! December 29th marked the end of the first round, after it was extended from its previously scheduled conclusion at the end of November. Because of the smaller pool of contestants this year, it was decided to keep sign-ups open throughout the month of December. This extension proved to be very helpful as we saw that more users signed up and completed many reviews. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 402 points, followed by Cartoon network freak with a close 338 points. Shearonink who signed up after our extension was in third with 170 points. We had a rule clarification in Round 1 which was that many articles were being passed with blatant copyright violations and plagarism occurring in the articles. Thus, the judges have concluded that if an article is passed even if it has a copyright violation/plagarism, we will not provide points for that article as it wouldn't be considered a "complete review" under the scoring rules. In the end, 94 articles were reviewed by 14 users who will all advance to Round 2. The judges had planned on having 16 contestants advance but since only 14 did, we are changing the pools in this round. We will be having 2 pools of 3 and 2 pools of 4 in Round 2, with the top 2 in each pool advancing to Round 3 as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 will begin on January 1 at 00:00:00 UTC and will end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase! To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2017!

To you and yours! May you have a happy, prosperous and joyous one! God bless!  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Prose improvement sought

I'm trying to get the article on Gundelia at B-Class in the Plant-project. I'm not a native speaker though, so I could use some help improving the prose. Could I ask you if you'd be willing to read and improve this article. Thank you very much in advance, Kind regards and happy New Year. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Sure, I'll take a look at it soon although I'm no expert on plants! JAGUAR  19:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Oakhanger, Hampshire

The article Oakhanger, Hampshire you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Oakhanger, Hampshire for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rodw -- Rodw (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well done for your work on this. I know it can be hard to find sources to expand village articles like this - I've done it myself as you know. Good luck with the next 100 in East Hampshire.— Rod ^talk 08:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It was your Somerset GAs which inspired me. Now that this article has been promoted, I'm certain that it's possible. JAGUAR  12:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Typos made using AWB

Please do not use AWB to introduce misspellings, as you did here and here. As you know, I believe you should not use AWB at all, but as Salvidrim! seems to believe in your abilities more than I do, I will not do anything about your access at the moment. Happy editing, —Kusma (t·c) 14:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It's very rare when AWB changes people's names, thinking that they're typos, but I must point out that I haven't done any typo fixing since that very day, and I won't plan to either for the foreseeable future. And did you look at this instance? All it did was change the style of the quote marks, which was correct? JAGUAR  14:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You changed "Amout" to "Amount", which seems to be wrong. —Kusma (t·c) 20:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Keechaka Vadham/archive1

I plan to take this to FA. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the PR page by pinging me. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion you may be interested in offering your two cents on

Since Talk:Stanley Kubrick is such a mess with arguments over infoboxes, and has been that way for quite some time, I figured the issue should be taken to a sort of higher court. See Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should biographical articles always include an infobox?. Hopefully less insults will occur over there. –Matthew - (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Indian Sports

The sports articles about Indian athletes are in a appalling state. Do you have any interest in working on it, maybe a specific sport? Let me know, Thanks. NumerounovedantTalk 08:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I know nothing about sports and don't feel like I could be of any help there. Sorry! JAGUAR  18:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries, but if you find some spare time, would you mind taking up the GAR for this. NumerounovedantTalk 04:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tiny Town (miniature park)...

I did a GA Review for Tiny Town (miniature park), passed the article to GA status and then tried to update the talk page using Template:Article history but can't quite get it right. Could you please take a look and fix it for me? For instance, the top template on the talk page says "Tiny Town (miniature park) has been listed as a good article under the good article criteria." so the type of good article is missing ("Culture, sociology, psychology" is there as the topic but it's missing from that top statement). Also the GOCE editing in August 2016 should be within that Template:Article history on the talk page but I couldn't figure out how to get it placed in there correctly. Thanks in advance for any help, Shearonink (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: fixed. I added the oldid revision to the template so that it will now give the revision of the article when it was promoted (not exactly a requirement, but I always do it). I also fixed the topic parameter by removing the other words and just leaving it as "topic=culture", if that makes sense. Don't worry about the other templates not being in the article history template, someone usually comes along with AWB and sorts it out. If it won't happen within a couple of days I'll do it myself. Thanks again for your participation in the GA Cup! Regards JAGUAR  11:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

REQUEST

Hello! Can you please improve the career section of Ryu Jun-yeol. Because most of the prose is just peacock and fluff without any source. It was as if a die-hard fan wrote it. It would be of great help if you visit the page and do some tweaking for objectivity. Thank you very much! 180.190.102.249 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. JAGUAR  11:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm just wondering why you didn't remove phrases like "immense popularity" and the like, especially since its without sources? I would have thought it's against Wikipedia's guidelines. Plus, the prose itself is very amateur. No matter, big thanks! 180.191.151.238 (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I must have missed that for some reason. It seems a bit informal, especially without sources, so I've changed it to something else. You were right. I must have been tired when I edited that! JAGUAR  15:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Endorsement

Please help in removing the Endorsement section on Shin Min-a's page as it's not only unencyclopedic (Wiki is not a directory after all) but they also all without source as well. Thanks! 180.191.151.20 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like somebody beat me to it. JAGUAR  11:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Request

Please help in removing the Endorsement section on Lee Jong-suk's page as it's not only unencyclopedic (Wiki is not a directory after all) but they are also all without source as well. Fans of the actor keep on adding it. Thanks!

Which endorsement section? Or are you referring to any informalities in the his career section? I can't seem to find it? JAGUAR  14:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Bug!

On 15 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bug!, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the titular character from Bug! was one of three candidates to be the mascot for the Sega Saturn console, due to the lack of a Sonic the Hedgehog video game? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bug!. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bug!), 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.

Schwede66 00:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Shalden

Jaguar,

I edited the page on Shalden to remove reference to Fanny Adams as I don't think this is accurate. Searching newspapers from 1867 I can't find reference to the murder being in Shalden, but to the Alton murder.

The hopfield in which Fanny was murdered was close the area known as Flood Meadows, which is firmly within Alton. There is also reference to some of her remains being thrown into the River Wey, in multiple accounts, which must therefore also suggest the murder took place in Alton, rather than Shalden since the river flows through Alton.

I'm happy to provide further information on this, but the referece supporting the above is here: https://hampshireculturaltrust.org.uk/content/true-story-sweet-fanny-adams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.62.104 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and it's OK, my mistake. I always believed the murder took place in a hop field near The Hollow, in between Alton and Shalden. I have the True Story of Fanny Adams book (bought it in town a couple of weeks ago!) and it's by far the most detailed source. I actually plan to bring Fanny Adams' article to GA status one day. Thanks again. JAGUAR  17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Oakhanger, Hampshire

On 16 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oakhanger, Hampshire, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Roman hoard of 11,000 silver pieces was found in the village of Oakhanger in Hampshire? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oakhanger, Hampshire. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Oakhanger, Hampshire), 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.

Schwede66 00:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject United States Territories

Are you still working on the WikiProject United States Territories? I was looking at the page for it and it seemed a little sparse but there were a ton of pages in this project. I would like to help out but I am fairly new so its a bit daunting to start working on something so big. Alex the Nerd (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Alex the Nerd

@Alex the Nerd: the project is still active, even though I'm the only person on it! Thanks for joining. The project's scope covers all present territories (including Unincorporated territories), like Puerto Rico, American Samoa etc. There are also two sister projects; British territories, and French territories. JAGUAR  19:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

We should coordinate a bit with what we are doing, I created a preliminary To-Do list but what should I start working on? Alex the Nerd (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Alex the Nerd

Thanks for that, I'll respond on the project's talk page. JAGUAR  18:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI on indenting

Hi -- just going through your replies at the Burning Rangers FAC, and I noticed something I thought I would mention. When you indent, the way to do it is to repeat the previous indent and then add either an asterisk or a colon depending on whether you want a bullet point or not. If you follow a "*:blah blah blah" line with a ":*:blah blah" line, you may or may not get what you want -- if you've ever seen a threaded comment with two bullets on the same line you'll have seen the sort of thing that can result. Instead, follow a "*:" line with either "*:*" for a bullet or "*::" for an indent. Just FYI. Re the FAC: I'll try to finish going through your replies this afternoon, but I have to go out in a bit so I might not get to it till tonight or tomorrow morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: thanks for letting me know about that! It seems that I'm still having these epiphanies even after seven years of service. I'll correct my indenting from now on. Thanks for taking a look at the Burning Rangers FAC, I too am a bit pressed for time but I should start copyediting the reception section tonight. I'll leave some more feedback at the FAC page soon. JAGUAR  19:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I'd been editing for at least five years before I figured out indenting, and even then it took another editor leaving me a talk page message to explain it -- I never actually figured it out on my own. No hurry on the FAC; I'll keep an eye on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The British Crown is actually a constitutional monarchy in the UK only and not in the Crown Dependencies or in the British Overseas Territories

[1]

I was having trouble when I was editing the Gibraltar article. A bit childish to summarily revert people really, just like that, in my view.

I don't know, it sounds more like something out of a period from the 19th century to the 1930s, when the Governments of British, Dutch and German colonies and of French, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian overseas territories and also the Government of the Belgian Congo, using deceptive advertisements and advertising, to lure unsuspecting poor or unemployed young Europeans living in Western Europe, to accept "hardship postings" in or under much harsher and unfavourable conditions in non-European-settled European colonies in Africa, Asia and Oceania...given the relatively small population (fewer than 50,000) of Gibraltar, perhaps the editors are actually civil servants in the Government of Gibraltar (or their family members), trying to make Gibraltar look like as if it were a constituent part and a separate Kingdom within a so-called "Kingdom of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" more on the line of the Kingdom of the Netherlands or the Kingdom of Denmark, or a fifth constituent part of the United Kingdom on the lines of England and Wales, and Scotland and Northern Ireland, or a bit of both! ... if not also peddling a myth that Gibraltar being somehow a full member in Gibraltar's own right of the EU and of the EEA! ... probably in order to lure, by "a bit" of deception, unsuspecting professionals and business investment and investors, who haven't done their proper homework, and unaware of the true constitutional status of Gibraltar, into Gibraltar as many and as much possible, before Brexit finally happens, when Britain (well, England and Wales, really; but so what?!) drags Gibraltar (along with Scotland and Northern Ireland) out of the EU and probably also the EEA (and sooner the better; for one thing, English law and the English common law wouldn't really exist in their present form, if the UK were to remain in the EU for another 70-200 years!)

Anyhow, to describe the "British" Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories as being "under [a] constitutional monarchy" is, quite frankly, patent nonsense. The British Crown is only a constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom only. In the judgement in R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ([2008] UKHL 61, Session 2007-2008, on appeal from [2007] EWCA Civ 498)), in the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, Lord Hoffmann said, in Points 31 and 32,

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081022/banc-1.htm https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081022/banc-2.htm https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081022/banc.pdf http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/61.html

31."Before your Lordships the case has been most ably argued by Mr Jonathan Crow QC for the Crown and Sir Sydney Kentridge QC for the respondent. It is common ground that as BIOT was originally ceded to the Crown, Her Majesty in Council has plenary power to legislate for the Territory. The law is stated in Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th edition, 2003 reissue) vol 6, para 823:"

"“In a conquered or ceded colony the Crown, by virtue of its prerogative, has full power to establish such executive, legislative, and judicial arrangements as this Crown thinks fit, and generally to act both executively and legislatively, provided the provisions made by the Crown do not contravene any Act of Parliament extending to the colony or to all British possessions. The Crown’s legislative and constituent powers are exercisable by Order in Council, Letters Patent or Proclamation…”"

32. "Authority for these propositions will be found in Lord Mansfield’s judgment in Campbell v Hall (1774) 1 Cowp 204

(“no question was ever started before, but that the King has a right to a legislative authority over a conquered country.”)

This appeal requires your Lordships to determine the limits of that power."

The Constitutions of the Crown Dependencies and of the British Overseas Territories, arguably, not being (because they are not) Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom, do not actually bind the British Crown as such, exercised by the [Home] British Government, by the (in the case of British Overseas Territories) Foreign Secretary, through the Foreign Office (FCO), in the name of and for on behalf of the Secretary of State; thus the "British Monarchy" (the British Sovereign, as the British Crown) is and remains theoretically at least absolute, in the Crown Dependencies and in the British Overseas Territories, although exercisable and exercised by the [Home] British Government.

-- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It was a very interesting read and I never knew that the territories were not constitutional monarchies! I'm interested in overseas territorials of countries (but really only the UK, France and the US have any significant territories). JAGUAR  21:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I think to even claim that the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories have "their own" (separate) monarchy or head of state, at all, albeit the same person, is probably also a bit of a nonsense...the Palace's (Buckingham Palace; i.e., the Royal Household) and the Government's (and probably especially the Foreign Office's (FCO)) lawyers probably told the Government to specifically take out (omit) references to the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories, from; i.e., to implicitly (except to trained (or self-taught, such as myself) legal eyes) not extend the Succession to the Crown Bill (United Kingdom) to those territories before it becomes enacted (2013 Chapter 20), under a very important principle of law (in the English Common law) established by the case of the year 1722 (the Memorandum of the Master of the Rolls [in the the Court of the King's Bench] of the 8th August 1722, said [...] to have been determined by the Lords of the Privy Council, upon an appeal to the King in Council[,] from the foreign Plantations) [2][3][4][5]...by failing to explicitly or even actually, by inference, through wording, state that the Act would extend to the Territories, the English Common law, the case of 1722 provides that the Act (the 2013 Act) does not extend to the Territories...perhaps those QCs and barristers interpret English law as viewing those territories as not actually having their own separate monarchies as such from the United Kingdom (albeit with the same monarch (person) as that of the United Kingdom) (personal union), thus unnecessary.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20/pdfs/ukpga_20130020_en.pdf
-- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Winslade

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Winslade you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bungle -- Bungle (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Winslade

The article Winslade you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Winslade for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bungle -- Bungle (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Binsted

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Binsted you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bungle -- Bungle (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Binsted

The article Binsted you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Binsted for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bungle -- Bungle (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Gentleman (2016 film)

Need your help here, buddy. Let me know if you are interested. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take it. JAGUAR  17:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Winslade

The article Winslade you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Winslade for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bungle -- Bungle (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:BE

Jaguar, I changed WP:BE back to a redirect to our blocking policy. I see from the history that in 2008 (which I made a mistake in my edit summary) that it was originally created as a redirect to the Wikipedia:WikiProject British Empire. In 2010 it was changed to redirect to our blocking policy and since then it's been cited on tens of thousands of pages. During that six year period, the WikiProject British Empire has been largely inactive including on its talk pages. I think a community discussion would be needed to change that redirect to the WikiProject mainly considering how many places WP:BE is linked in reference to blocks. It's a shortcut used commonly at AIV, SPI, and other administrative areas. Let me know if you'd like to proceed with that discussion at the village pump. Mkdw ^talk 06:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I understand. It seems like the shortcut would serve a much better use if it was directed at the blocking policy rather than a semi-active project. WP:EMPIRE suits the project quite well, so I'll leave it at that! JAGUAR  14:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay sounds good. Cheers, Mkdw ^talk 20:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Medstead

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Medstead you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bungle -- Bungle (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Binsted

The article Binsted you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Binsted for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bungle -- Bungle (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Assassination of Abraham Lincoln

This is not a GA Cup question but maybe you can help... I have run into this problem before, where an article is passed to GA but then an old delisting review is still showing up as the status. I nominated this article for a GA and it underwent a review and was passed to GA status. Could you please take a look at Talk:Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and fix the code/headers so the status shows up correctly? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: Thank goodness for cut&paste...I think I figured out how to get the headers fixed (the article-status on the main article page looks fine now)...but would appreciate your taking a look at it to make sure. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep you got it right. Putting the GAN template into the article history template can be a bit tricky. JAGUAR  23:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Medstead

The article Medstead you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Medstead for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bungle -- Bungle (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jaguar. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/2017 EFL Cup Final.
Message added 11:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

British Empire

Against Australian people after Federation seem stretching scope a little too far, I am sure I have asked before, as to whether you really understand where to start or stop with the scope of British empire, and what it really consistutes. I really think you should actually put something on the Australian Noticeboard (and this would be relevant probably for Canadian items as well) - explaining why somehow that Australian individuals wh had nothing to do with the British Empire in any sense of the word are being included. cheers JarrahTree 11:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the British Empire? I'm specifically tagging them because they were involved/born in the colonies at the time, as supported by the project's scope. Most of them were colonial administrators and magistrates. Not one of the tagged people are living either. JAGUAR  11:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Colonies at the time - have you a point of reference where they all ceased to be as such ? - I would have thought Australia's states were no longer colonies after 1901, unless you have a WP:RS that says otherwise - this is nothing to do with whether they are living - I am more interested in your being able to establish correctly for wikipedia purposes of when the colonies ceased to be colonies, and as a consequence why the individuals are of interest to the british empire project scope? It would be very helpful... thank you JarrahTree 12:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll pick an example at random: James Stirling (Royal Navy officer) - Admiral Sir James Stirling (28 January 1791 – 22 April 1865) was a British naval officer and colonial administrator. Another smaller example would be John Bathgate; John Bathgate (10 August 1809 – 21 September 1886) was a 19th-century New Zealand politician, his date date of birth and death indicating the time when New Zealand was a colony. A more specific example: Jane Swain Adams; Jane Swain Adams (known locally as "Granny Adams") was a pioneering farmer in Mangowine, Western Australia. She was born in Toodyay on 28 February 1851. I have taken steps to ensure that all individuals tagged were either born, grew up, or involved with Australasian colonies in their lifetimes. Although Stirling was not born in a colony, he was a colonial administrator and involved in the empire's affairs, whereas Bathgate was a New Zealand politician and Adams simply born in the colony. The last example is a bit more ambiguous, but they all fall under the project's scope. I have never tagged a living person—even if they were born in 1901 I would discount it! The point is that all tagged individuals were affiliated with the empire in some way, and thus fall under the project's scope. If you disagree with an aspect, let me know and I'll take another look. In the mean time I will stop tagging until this discussion has been clarified or if you still disagree with anything. JAGUAR  12:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Nah keep going, I think you are in the clear -

OK, after a closer look at recognisable names - I think my criticism might be misplaced - I can accept the point that the ones that came across my watch list were Western Australians who had been part of 'colonial positions' but in some administrative positions in Western Australia the word 'colonial' crept past 1901, and was used after the ceasing of 'colonies' and into the era of states that constituted the new federation - tricky.

Apologies, at this stage - as terminology can be very misleading, however I am still concerned that where something like the transition of the colonies that evolved into states of Australia, some terminology might not necessarily 'move up' the scale, so to speak, and encourage misnomers of what constituted elements of the 'British Empire' as such or what really belongs in the individual projects of the countries that were removed from the shackles of the London based bureacuracy of the empire - the possibility of being legalistic and particular about the removal of all vestiges of the empire - some things remain even to this day.

I think we are at cross purposes - you seem mentioning living people - and I am trying to establish a point where colonies ceased - and what they became were less a component of the British Empire compared to when they were colonies. My limited understanding of Australian constitutional history suggests that the Australian colonies ceased to be specific constitutional parts of the empire upon the creation of the federation of Australia - and that is where I think you have to be careful - my noting that 'colonial' something in some positions after 1901 might be rabbit holes - in that they lead a suggestion that federation did not completely remove australia from things that happen in London - and therefore the BE as it was.

What items I see you have done re the Western Australian context I have only seen a few very problematic items, but to explore them, there are complex arguments which might not be productive at this stage.

I say keep going, but I would drop the 'living' thing, and be more focused on understanding when colonies ceased - and what that meant as to the standing of individuals in those places when they became more independent of the BE - not simple. JarrahTree 12:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I have asked a friend who might have a better understanding of these things to have a look at what I have said here. JarrahTree 12:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think 1901 is a good limit to set things. All of the articles in the category mostly consist of 19th century politicians and colonial administrators. Don't worry, I have never tagged any living people and nor will I. I've even gone back and reverted a couple which I thought were inappropriate, but otherwise the list I've made is pretty accurate. If it's OK with you, I'm going to leave it the target a 1901 as that was the year it gained its constitution. Or should I increase it to 1986? Joking! I'll continue my tagging (haven't got that many left), but if you disagree with anything please let me know and I'll take another look. JAGUAR  18:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)