Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:VPM)
Jump to: navigation, search
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or – for assistance – at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Older discussions, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46
Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

The strange changing of the last name of Peter willam Marshal to William Herbert just lately[edit]

This is a very unusual recent change in this last name. From Marshal to Herbert overnight almost as it were. This only happened after the Australian Mr.Timothy Leif Herbert of that family name started to make investigations as to the validity of the correct family name holders of the current estate of the Earl of Pembrokeshire.

Why was this name changed?

The question in my mind is this ; Is the family name of Marshal the true Estate and title holders of the titleof Earl of Pembrokeshire? If so, then why the name change? Was this legal? Was this done in accordance with the Magna-carta acts of the Sovereign authority? Was this done covertly to throw or stave off any Herbert Claimants? Are the Herberts of the Herbert/McDonald linage the true Holders of the Title and the estate.?

THESE QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
It may be about William Herbert, 18th Earl of Pembroke. But all the Earls of Pembroke have been named "Herbert" since the first creation of the earldom in 1468. Maproom (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
According to the 'Earl of Pembroke' article, nearly all the Earls of Pembroke have been named "Herbert" since the eighth creation of the earldom in 1468. The Earls of the second creation in 1189 were Marshals, but they ran out of male heirs in 1245. So Marshal to Herbert took 223 years; hardly "overnight almost as it were" unless you're a geologist. Qwfp (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No-, sorry , i dont believe that is the reason for the change. the timing of all of this is just too co-incidental, why? So ask yourself this , is it because after this man started to question it, i dont believe that response from the responders from the area below, i would like to know who made the additional changes to the pages and their modification dates . If it is the case that the line of marshal are known as herberts, then why hasnt that info been listed before?. Why did that info only come up in april , may and june of this year, no-way . i think there is something being hidden here, and i dont believe it for 1 second. really, why did it only come into wiki when that man started to question the name line?, for his benefit of knowledge?, not.

Something strange is going on here, because that info on the whole family line should have shown up in the first place, and it did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly it might be an idea if the australian were to be contacted by The earl himself in order to clarify his position, just a thought. I would imagine the australian man shouldnt be too hard to get a hold of, afterall his info for contact is avaliable, isnt it.?

It all just seems to be a really unusually timed situation, wouldnt you agree.?

Therefore my questions kinda still remain, and the biggest one is this; isnt it possible that the Herbert line of william thomas is not dead and buried, think about it, All Herberts of the last name must be related and rather closely. As I know that his family line are descendants of Anne Boleyn, and we all know who that is. So why is it not possible then therefore with the knowledge of that the family line of Herbert and the timing of this info investigation are not linked somehow, as i said its too co-incidental. So whats going on here? Can anyone find this man.?

If the Current Earl is the great man he is known to be, why wouldnt he contact Mr.Herbert in some way to help him clear some air , as it appears he may be confused on this matter. Makes sense to me, or is something wrong with all of this. Just a friendly suggestion, thats all. or

Has the Australian nailed something about all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2014‎

Dear OP: Please stop extending and refactoring your earlier comments; you're making it look as though you said all that before the replies below, which isn't true. Please add further comments below the replies they go with. And in response to your updated query: I know nothing about this case without researching it, but we don't go by people contacting other people for information - we go by published reputable sources. If there aren't any, then we don't publish. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What Motivates People To Edit?[edit]

I just wanted to ask people who have been editing Wikipedia for a while what motivates them to make edits and use the site? What pleasure do they get from editing Wikipedia articles? I myself have browsed and read for years but never got into editing because I am super busy with so many things and don't really have the time or passion. I'm also wondering if the typical Wikipedia user is unemployed or stays at home a lot (not that there is anything wrong with those things) since I would think it is pretty time-consuming to edit and use Wikipedia on a regular basis. BikeRider95 (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The pleasure I get is the same one may get from organizing a messy drawer, vacuuming a dirty floor or organizing a closet. But that probably is related to the type of editing I do. YMMV. Also, editing Wikipedia doesn't have to be time-consuming. Creating an article doesn't have to be hard, either. A stub can be banged out in minutes and it can later be expanded by others, little by little, to become a featured article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
By editing, I learn. I now know more about the history of the Pershing missile than I did when I was a missile tech. Ditto for Lone Scouts of America, Boy Rangers of America, American Boy Scouts, Sons of Daniel Boone and other historical Scouting organizations— I never heard of these when I was a young Scout. --  Gadget850 talk 14:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I like to write. And by writing/improving articles on Wikipedia I reach a wider audience than other methods I've found. (Except for that one message I left on a building wall many years ago.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
As an example of what Frecklefoot said, I created this stub when I'd been editing for four months. Others improved on that, and ten months after creation, it was promoted to featured article, although it's not yet been Today's featured article. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The first two articles I created (Perspective and MNIST database) were motivated by the thought "I can't believe they don't have an article on that." Also, there's a certain satisfaction in cleaning up a project that's used by so many people and knowing that something you have created has helped others in a concrete way. I recently met someone who basically learned about the field of artificial intelligence largely through the article Convolutional neural network. APerson (talk!) 01:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Couple types of motivation. Photography-wise, current motivation is "why doesn't Wikipedia have this? / Wikipedia deserves to have this" (especially with NRHP sites). Article-wise, a decent amount has been "this local topic deserves better coverage" a la Italian Hall and Jacobsville Sandstone (both articles I started). Chris857 (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite frankly, the reason I edit is because something I care about is missing. I view the world in terms of interconnections and patterns, and when the best that the world's encyclopedia has is some scattered mentions without any larger context, it is an intellectual imperative to get that content out there in a way that shows people the connections that I can see in my head. I guess it's a manifestation of intellectual loneliness, or possibly arrogance - I want others to be able to see things the way I do. VanIsaacWScont 06:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Reguarding Guidelines to extended comments edited by me in the strange name of the case of marshal/ herbert[edit]

My apologies to the establishment, first time user here. thanx for reiterating comment alteration and furthered guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem, everyone has a first time. Please also help us out by typing ~~~~ after your comments, which will sign them. — Scott talk 14:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Note that I added a reference to Mihail Popovici. Also, help find a reference to Andrei Filotti. Thank you. --Scymso (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page stalker template[edit]

Can we get a few more opinions here: Template talk:Talk page stalker? --NeilN talk to me 20:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

use of single quotes[edit]

The first paragraph of CDC 3000 uses a phrase in single quotes three times. I've seen it in quite a few other articles. To me this seems improper - single quotes are to be used as a quote within a quote, as far as I know. Is there any policy or guideline about this? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTEMARKS and MOS:QUOTE. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Per those sources, it would seem the use of the single quotes is incorrect. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Showing support Comment[edit]

On a WikiProjects talk page is there some standard way to attribute support to someone else's comment? For example, if a proposal is made, just to say.. "Yeah, I think that's a great idea".. without writing "Yea, I think that's a great idea" .. To get behind it and show your support. i.e. (thumbs up) ? David Condrey (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests#Template:Support. Qwfp (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Some people 👍 Like the {{like}} template. If you look at the template's page, there's a long list of similar ones towards the bottom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Some Office Hours, with Gayle Karen Young[edit]

Hello, all. Tomorrow, the Foundation's Chief Talent and Culture Officer, Gayle Karen Young, will be answering questions in an IRC Office hour. The topic will be "Experiencing Transition: an org perspective." Please join us for the discussion.

Srebrenica massacre[edit]

This article should be called Srebrenica genocide. ICTY's verdict in this case is clear and it's internationally recognized. I know that this issue was discussed earlier, but it's still status quo. Who doesn't allow to call things by their real names? -- KWiki (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Holocaust massacres and pogroms are all genocidal too, but that doesn't mean they have to have "genocide" in the article title.--Pharos (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Templates written by banned editor[edit]

I know that a number of templates have been speedy deleted (WP:G5) because they were created by banned editors, but I do not know hw to find them. Can someone help me?--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

See the related discussion on "What to do with articles written by banned editor" over in Village Pump (Idea lab)--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)