User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 8

West Africa Campaign

Per your edit, i have done a Afd. I have completed the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Africa Campaign (World War II). However i am unsure if i have done everything that i have had to. Have i completed the entire process? I would appreicate if you replied here so i can keep track of the conversation. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I've added delsorts to it to make it more likely to be seen by people interested in the subject. Note that I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. I can see what you're getting at, but I think it needs wider discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Its okay, i understand why you thought it was best to have a wider discussion. You need not to worry about me fishing for your support, i was merly attempting to ensure i had completed the correct procedure. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

SPI

• Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cottesmore School. You may wish to comment further at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/First4Uppingham. Warden (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your input is requested...

Hi, I noticed that your entry on a recent AFD saying that all secondary schools are notable, and I'd like to ask you if you could do the same for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwoods Community Secondary School. Thanks! --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 16:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Old Testament

Hi, you mentioned at CFD Speedy that renaming Category:Films based on the Old Testament had already been discussed and rejected. I could not find that discussion by looking at "what links here" for the category. What discussion were you thinking of, please? – Fayenatic London (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for your edit removing Category:Portrayals of Jesus in film from Category:Biographical films about religious leaders. However, it was clearly absurd to have no films about Jesus in that category, so I have set up Category:Biographical films about Jesus. Please check my work. I think that it should probably be a sub-cat of "Films based on the Gospels": do you agree? – Fayenatic London (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

George Gibson (trade unionist)

Hi,

I discovered that it was you who added most of the information on George Gibson (UK trade unionist). I'm George's great-grand daughter; some of the information in your article was new even to my grandfather, George's last living son. Could you let me know where you found all of the information, particularly on his early life? I know that you give the Oxford Dcitionary of National Biography as a source, but noticed a comment on the history page saying that you wrote the original - does that mean the original in the Oxford Dictionary? Anyway, thanks for adding the information and any other details you have would be gratefully received! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.213.101.34 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Much of the information came from here. This biography is largely based on unpublished memoirs of George Gibson held among a small quantity of his papers in the Modern Records Centre at the University of Warwick. I did not write the DNB entry, but I did write this one. Regards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching Alfred Arthur O'Connor. Can't believe I managed to miss that the article said he was elected to parliament. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

John Barnard Bush

You asked "Is Mr Bush ever known by his full name or is he simply known as John Bush?" and commented "If the latter then the article should be moved back to its original title under WP:NCP." The short answer to the question is that he is known as both "John Bush" and "John Barnard Bush". The long answer is that WP:NCP does not talk about the name someone is "simply known as", and under "Middle names and abbreviated names" it says "Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources". Almost all of the reliable souces cited in this article use "John Barnard Bush", and I chose that name because it seems to comply best with the policy. Even if I had got that wrong, in reply to the comment after your question, I'm not sure it would follow that the page should be moved back to its original title. As a disambiguator, "Lord Lieutenant" strikes me as a bad one, because being a Lord Lieutenant isn't a defining characteristic. I considered John Bush (farmer) before checking what the reliable sources said. Moonraker (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It also says "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." Bush will obviously be referred to using his full name in sources such as Who's Who and the London Gazette. The question is whether it is used in news articles and the like (i.e. common name). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The policy does not seem to distinguish between "sources such as Who's Who and the London Gazette" and "news articles and the like". Perhaps you may think it should. The term "commonly used" must be shorthand for "commonly used in reliable sources", or else how could we ever establish what form is commonly used? That being so, the word "merely" in "merely for disambiguation purposes" excludes this case from what is advised against. Moonraker (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Honours Lists

Just curious, what are the Honours Lists (e.g. User:Necrothesp/Honours Lists/1931 Honours Lists)? I found the 1924 and 1931 lists by accident when searching to see if any pages had redlinks for Reginald Townsend, a leading Liberian politician in the 1970s. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

They're the lists of people who have received British honours (e.g. knighthoods, peerages etc). They're usually published twice a year, at New Year and on the sovereign's official birthday, but lists are occasionally published at other times too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

McColl Frontenac

Thanks so much for your help on the article. I was fighting deletion, but being a newbie in the Wiki world of editing, I was struggling with it. I'm really happy the article gets to stay now because of your edits, the company deserves it's place in Wiki because of it's oil history in Canada, being the forerunner to the creation of Texaco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuck422 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely no excuse for an article to be proposed for deletion less than three hours after its creation unless it's patent nonsense or clearly non-notable, which this obviously wasn't. I'm no expert on the history of oil companies, but it looks perfectly notable to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

ACG International School

Hi Necrothesp. I noted your comment on removing my Prod from the ACG International School. I can't find anything that makes it notable here in New Zealand, or from my Asian friends. Should I nominate for a deletion discussion? NealeFamily (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a secondary school and verified secondary schools usually have presumption of notability. They are almost always kept at AfD. You can nominate it, but frankly I wouldn't bother, as it is most likely to be kept. I would certainly vote to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that even though there is nothing that makes it notable it is notable? I have only been able to find self promotion information on the college and even the article only uses self promotion references. NealeFamily (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you define notability? As I said, secondary educational institutions are almost always found to be notable. You're welcome to take it to AfD, but it is likely to be kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately I alone don't define notability :). The criteria for a school looks like it would fall under WP:Org, unless I have missed some other criteria. The school simply fails to cross the notability line under the guideline. Can you find anything that makes the school notable? I have tried but can't. I am happy to put it to the test with the wider community. As an aside, I appreciate the time you have taken to comment here. Thanks. NealeFamily (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have said, secondary schools are usually held to be notable simply by virtue of being secondary schools. This (unofficial, but widely applied) rule also applies to a few other categories, such as tertiary educational institutions, villages, members of legislatures, generals and admirals etc. Since it's unofficial, it doesn't stop them being nominated for deletion, but the outcome is usually pretty much preordained (although there have been exceptions). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I will leave them be. NealeFamily (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Necrothesp someone has nominated them for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic Colleges Group (2nd nomination). You might like to add your comments. NealeFamily (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Page moves

I saw your edit summary, "UK is not an adjective". You did discuss this centrally, right? --John (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You will see that the vast majority of pages already use "(British politician)" as a disambiguator. "UK" only tends to be used as an adjective by Americans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that a "no"? I would recommend having a central discussion before doing any more moves. What is the utility of the moves to our users? Who will fix all the redirects your moves are creating? --John (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So, you actually favour complete inconsistency by having a majority of articles disambiguated by the correct "(British politician)" and a minority by the incorrect "(UK politician)"? Sorry, but I really don't think this needs discussion and I'm curious to know why you think it does (as you haven't yet actually said). What is important is maintaining Wikipedia as a credible, consistent, accurate source, not an "it's at this title because it just is" attitude. Logical moves do not require discussion. If I was moving articles to an incorrect minority title then I would agree with you, but I'm clearly not. What would we in Britain normally say: "John Smith is a British politician" or "John Smith is a UK politician"? I think the answer is very clear. As to your final question, the answer is, if you check, me! I have fixed all double redirects. Single redirects are perfectly acceptable and do not need fixing, as I'm sure you're aware. If they did then we'd never move anything and Wikipedia would become a stagnating monolith. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Harrison

Ok, that's your 4th undiscussed move to your preferred title. Might I suggest actually talking about it next time? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, we all know that disambiguators are always parenthesised and this is mandated in guidelines. It didn't need talking about, as you know very well. Maybe in your zeal to criticise me you didn't realise that he didn't move it to Barbara Harrison, he just moved it to Jane Harrison GC, which is clearly incorrect on Wikipedia? See all other GC disambiguations. Why on earth should this be an exception? You have proposed the article for renaming. If it is successful I will naturally abide by that decision (although I don't agree). But I have no intention of leaving the article at a title which goes against Wikipedia naming conventions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

British armed services promotions

In your reversion of my edit to Robert Prendergast you wrote- "in the British Armed Forces one is promoted a rank, not to a rank." Out of curiosity I did some checking. The articles- John Cooper (British Army officer), Peter Wall (British Army officer), Mike Jackson, Nick Carter (British Army officer) to name four have the officer in question as 'promoted to' a rank at least once in their articles. Do those articles need to be fixed too?

Here's something curious. A British Army website[1] if you scroll down to the rank of major it says 'Promotion to Major'. You're a smart and hard working editor. Are you sure of what you're saying in this case?

I don't dabble in military articles too much though I did fix up[2] the article on General John Crocker a while back. Me and one other editor considered that material dubious. Cheers....William 01:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Yes, you say "promotion to major", but you say "X was promoted major". "Promoted to" is not strictly incorrect, since it is of course perfectly good English, but it's not the normal terminology. I would also warn (although it's not actually an issue here) that using websites, even official websites, as a source for military terminology is not always a good idea, as terminology is often eclectic (and even pretty odd) and the webmasters aren't usually military personnel and have a tendency to correct copy to what they think it should be. Another good example is Aircraftman, the lowest rank in the RAF. Most people think it's actually "Aircraftsman" and I've seen it with the "s" even on official RAF websites. But it isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for the explanation. ...William 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

hello, could you help me with All-Soviet Peace Conference? I want to put it up for deletion so users can vote to keep/delete on the wikipedia articles for deletion log but I dont know how. --Goalisraised (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Redman

Hi thanks for your point re the title change / page move at Michael Redman. I'm trying to be simple but not sure I'm achieving that aim! Please would you advise how to close/settle the existing requests that Schwede66 referred to and also agree a workable disambiguator and get a move to it approved? It looks to me as though (Entrepreneur) or (entrepreneur) suits best. I'm happy to do the work of course but concerned that I am treading on toes unintentionally. Thank you. Deliberate Conscience (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Deliberate Conscience (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Gopikabai and Radhikabai

I was surprised that you removed the Proposed deletion tags without any valid reason. Further as an admin on english wikipedia instead of cleaning wikipedia with such articles who have no source no citations and have existed on wikipedia for over 4 years you are encouraging such stub articles which dont have single citations. As an admin , its my request that you must consider deleting those articles as they have remain as it is without citations for years.ThnxARIHANT SUB (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you might have removed prop deletion because no reason was given in the deletion notice, but you should have atleast checked its talk page as well as notice that these articles are without any source or citation for many years and even trying on Net for those persons dont give much result, and as per wiki policy non-notable and non-verifiable articles are considered for deletion. Since you are an admin, you should protect those from vandalism , the concern has been mentioned on those which were quite clear "no citation, non-notable personailty and spreading hoax " . ARIHANT SUB (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

From an admin , we cant expect such reason, you removed Propdelition tag without seeing its tag or the notices concerning no citation or references which are intact for years. Now because of your this mistake the same Dubious articles will remain on Wikipedia. This is one of the biggest backdrop of wikipedia, admin who dont have expertise in any subject treat all editors as inferior make edits without even looking at its talk page or notices regarding citations . Now other editor will come and claim that prop deletion tag was removed go to Afd and it will go unnoticed their for months and such articles without any citations and some of them are on "Personality who never existed" will continue on Wikipedia. So its my due request that you must give it due attention that such articles are deleted when their time limit of Prop Deletion runs out. Now because you removed the Prop Del tag without any reason other Admin might claim that this is not non-controversial, so you must took notice of this and must act accordingly when their time limit runs out. As admin you are entrusted with responsibility but your recent removal of those tags dont show any maturity. Atleast you should have talked on its "Discussion Page instead of acting like Big daddy , you yourself can see that citation tags are their for many years, so source or citation are not net to back these articles infact i doubt that any such personaility ever existed". So hoepfully you will rectify your mistake. ThnxARIHANT SUB (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Not giving a reason for a prod is a valid reason to delete the tag. What is on the talk page is irrelevant. If you want to delete these articles then take them to AfD instead of wasting your time and mine ranting about it. I'm mystified that you apparently have the energy to write reams of bad English criticising my actions when you can't be bothered to do something as simple as adding a reason to your prod tag. Incidentally, restoring prod tags after they have been deleted is against procedure. You need to improve your attitude and follow procedures instead of taking it upon yourself to blank pages and restore deleted prod tags. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep quite you dumb ass, the Wiki guidelines clearly state that discuss the issue on "talk page" before removing the propdel, , dumb fools like you are the one who have brought non-credibility to Wikipedia, as well as to England(which cannot even survive a WAR AGAINST INDIA for more than 10 days). The whole world knows that England is not a filthy and backward country with No technology(UK buys all defence equipment from US, cannot construct its own Missiles, the only SLBM of UK is brought from US, no wonder UK is almost in gutter).

Shamless editor instead of accepting mistake, rant like a bastard christian

ARIHANT SUB (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole world knows Jesus was an illegitimate son of AN UNKNOWN MAN and thats the reason why christians are so backward that they "USE HINDU NUMERICAL SYSTEM".ARIHANT SUB (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Lovely chap! Now indefinitely blocked! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Alison Mariot Leslie

Hi. Why do you think she goes by the name "Mariot Leslie"? Is Mariot her middle name or her maiden name?? Quis separabit? 17:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I only ask because I haven't seen where that is the case, although I may be looking in the wrong places. None of the reflinks in the article ([3], [4], [5], [6]) refer to her as anything other than Alison Mariot Leslie.

Also, although I know you are an accomplished senior editor, if you are going to change an article name, I think the article creator (if still editing) would appreciate a courtesy heads-up. Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Because she is listed in Who's Who as "(Alison) Mariot Leslie", which suggests she uses her second name. I have moved the article back and added a reference. I must say I have never considered it necessary to notify another editor when I edit an article. In my experience it's never been standard procedure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course I was not referring to normal editing stuff, but changing the name of an article with no apparent basis (this was before you "added a reference") is a little different, IMO. Quis separabit? 20:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bhushan Patwardhan

Hi, regarding these edits, according to Symbiosis International University he is not the head of the university, as this is one of the cases where there is a Chancellor above the vice-chancellor. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There always is, but is the chancellor actually the chief executive or merely a figurehead as is usual in Commonwealth countries? I note the chancellor is 76 years old, which is in most cases a little old to still be in charge. In any case, the deputy head may also be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Anna Kamieńska

Hi - beforeI take this article to AfD, please can you explain your rationale behinf the deprod - you say she "seems relatively notable" yet that is not supported by reliable sources. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement for sources to be included for an article to remain, only that there is a likelihood that sources do exist. In this instance, it is likely that these sources are in Polish. The version on Polish Wikipedia seems substantial and well-sourced. Prods should only be used on uncontroversial deletions; this does not fall into this category. The article needs improvement, not deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I will tag for improvement instead. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ibiza Cathedral etc.

Impressive chunks of translation, I was thinking to do it on some of the others, but time ran out, easier to set up a series of stubs. Thanks for your improvements. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that I didn't do the translation! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but still. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ed McKeever

Among a number of Edits you have changed the opening name from "Ed McKeever" to "Edward McKeever". Although born Edward, Ed is known as Ed (indeed was awarded his Olympic Gold as Ed). I'm not sure on Wikipedia policy for displaying names in this situation. I'm just checking as I would assume that the opening line should reflect the name he is known as with following text confirming his original name (see Marilyn Monroe's page as an example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardGees (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the bolded name on the opening line should generally be the individual's full name. The article title shows the name by which they are known. "Born as" implies that is no longer his name, which it clearly is no matter what he chooses to be known as. Many people are known by shortened names and most people don't use their middle names - that doesn't mean their full name is no longer valid. Marilyn Monroe is a different case, as she is commonly known by a name which bears no relation to her real name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

O'Day (sailboat)

I had marked this page for deletion because it is a duplicate of the "Day Sailer (dinghy)", and has an invalid name. I also redirected it to the Day Sailer (dinghy) page. You undid the changes I made and said it was "incorrect usage." Could you explain what I did wrong, and the correct way to deal with this? I had read the procedures for recommending deletion and I thought this was the correct procedure. Thank you. EricKent (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that the talk page for "O'Day (sailboat)" has a comment dating back to 2/07 saying "Recommend this be combined with the page already existing referring to the Day Sailer."

This is exactly what I did. I copied the unreferenced statements in the O'Day page to the Day Sailer page, updated them, and added references. I then marked the old page for deletion.

What is the correct way of doing this? EricKent (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

All you need to do is replace the entire text with #REDIRECT [[Day Sailer (dinghy)]]. You don't need to add a proposed deletion tag or an explanation (except in the edit summary box). By doing this it shows up on the proposed deletion category, which is how I came to it. I reverted as I wasn't sure exactly what you were trying to do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Robert Mone

There is no "standard" header. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. The original header should be kept. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I did read the section to which you directed me. Thanks. However, I do not agree with you. That section of the MOS says that the term "footnotes" is used when we have explanatory footnotes only. It goes on to say that the term "References" is used when we have citation footnotes. In the Robert Mone article, those are not explanatory footnotes, they are citation footnotes. So, please clarify for me what your point is and what the issue here is. To my understanding, an explanatory footnote is something like this example. "President Carter spent his childhood in California. (footnote 8)." And, below, footnote 8 says: "Carter, however, was actually born in Montana". That is a footnote that carries an explanatory text only, not a citation. In that type of case, the terminology "footnotes" is an appropriate header for the section. In the Mone article, however, the footnotes clearly contain citations to articles and such. So, please let me know your argument, your issue, and why you think the header should be "footnotes" instead of (the more traditional) "references". Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks for the note, also. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

See, also, a discussion that I raised about this issue at Wikipedia:Help desk#Proper header. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"notarchive" parameter of Template:London Gazette

Hi, Necrothesp. I fixed a bunch of drafts you are working on regarding medal recipients. The {{London Gazette}} cite tags you are using contain the parameter "notarchive", which is obsolete since 2009 according to the template documentation. You may wish to update your workflow accordingly. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume a simple oops?

There was no edit summary, which would pretty much be required for a talk page removal by an administrator. I assume a simple little oops here? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. My apologies. I wasn't even aware I'd edited the page - must have clicked on the wrong thing! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what I figured... I know I've done the same, then scratched my head later wondering. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Userbox Question

I randomly ended up on your user page and saw that you had been vandalized an astonishing 35 times? Is that normal for wikipedia pages? 96.251.19.59 (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

For the userpage of an administrator who's been on Wikipedia for eight years, yes. Quite modest, in fact. Idiots who want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their minority views tend to vent their frustrations at being told they can't write whatever they like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Osteopathic Medicine Redirect

Hi Necrothesp, regarding the osteopathic medicine redirect, it really seems that the best page to redirect it to is the Osteopathic medicine in the United States page, not osteopathy. If you read that opening sentence, which is only partially complete, closely, you'll see that it says osteopathy/osteopathic medicine are sometimes used interchangeably (and erroneously if we're being real here) to describe the medical philosophy put forward by AT Still in the mid-late 1800s. However, osteopathic medicine as it is practiced now by osteopathic physicians (different from non-physician osteopaths who practice osteopathy) has expanded immensely since that time and is now on par with modern medicine as practiced by MDs and international medical graduates. Osteopathy really only deals with the fundamental osteopathic principles and osteopathic manipulative medicine and while this is a component of osteopathic medicine, it is only a small part of it as osteopathic physicians are licensed in the full scope of medicine and also perform surgery, prescribe pharmacologic therapies, the way all modern licensed physicians do. Let me know if there's still any confusion or you want to discuss this further. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Pedro III of Portugal

I was amazed and outraged once I learned that Qwyrxian closed the move request for Pedro III of Portugal claiming lack of consensus.[7] Twelve editors supported the move and only four opposed. I complained to him about how unfair and absurd was his action and that he should accept the will of the vast majority or at least reopen the move request. I'd like to ask you to share your thoughts about it on his talk page. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I pointed the inherent flaws of using Google as a useful tool to say what is correct and what is not. I was careful to bring what English written sources say about it.[8] The greatest issue about move requests is that the discussion is far less about what academic studies tell about something than what search engines tell. Instead of a rich and interesting discussion between people who have true knowledge about what is being discussed and exchanging thoughts we have a bunch of people with little understanding who shows a few links and believe that it's enough to finish the discussion. --Lecen (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Always true, sadly. The internet is a great tool, but it is not always a great aid to scholarship, as it breeds people who suddenly think they're experts on any subject because they can use Google! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Griffiths (British Army officer)

Is there any reason you moved this from Arthur Griffiths? No disambiguation is occurring, so it should probably be moved back to the original title. Ryan Vesey 12:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, maybe you should reread the edit history! I moved it from Arthur griffiths, which is clearly wrong. And there are plenty of other people with the name Arthur Griffiths. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Medal categories at CFD

Hi Necrothesp

I see that you have made a lot of nominations at CfD 2012 September 20 for the deletion of medal categories. There's a good rationale in each case, so I'm sure that there is scope for productive discussions.

However, I do wonder if the sheer number of separate nominations will lead to editor fatigue, with some categories being under-scrutinised. So I want to suggest that there is more scope for grouping categories. For example, I think that the two posthumous promotion categories could be in one discussion, as the two wound badges in another, and a further big group could accommodate all the various service badges.

Grouping the categories like this would increase the chances of a decent turnout in each discussion.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT, I went ahead and merged several discussions. Hope that's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realise until I started CfDing them just how many of these categories there were! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad it's OK with you.

I know what you mean about not realising. There have been several times when I think I have figured out the scope of a problem, only to find that there's another bit, and then another bit. And then when I go back to the CfD page ppl have already commented, so I can't really merge the discussions without messing up the attribution of their comments. That's why i thought it best to do it soon, before more comments appeared

Congrats again on getting all this stuff to CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up I suggested keeping several of them. As someone who works a lot with military bios and uses AWB, having these categories makes it far easier to identify and edit them as a group than trying to determine them individually. It really doesn't harm anything to have these categories. I do think that submitting that many at once is a kinda improper. It pretty much ensures editor fatigue and makes sure that some of them will get deleted from lack of comments, cause editors to get mad because the category got deleted and then will either just recreate it or open up discussions about it. Really your just causing yourself a lot of extra work. I also think that some were in bad faith and didn't have enough thought put into the submission prior to it being CFD'ed (like the Purple heart, POW ones the 2 tab ones) personally but that's just me. Kumioko (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest you do not accuse me of bad faith and remain civil. A look at my record will tell you that I am an experienced editor and an administrator and do nothing in bad faith. I stand by my nomination of all of these categories. A Purple Heart is just a wound badge at the end of the day. It's nothing special. Many armies don't even bother to issue badges for being wounded, so I fail to see why the US armed forces should be a special case. Incidentally, I am a military historian and also work a lot with military biographies and I see no reason for any of these categories. "It doesn't harm anyone" is a very poor argument to make in deletion discussions. Few articles or categories harm anyone, but it doesn't mean we should keep them all. Should we have Category:People with blue eyes or Category:People who wear false teeth for instance? It doesn't harm anyone and it's just as defining as having a wound badge or a campaign medal. But clearly we shouldn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Any editor is quite entitled to disagree with another about the deletion of a category, and there may also be grounds to question the procedural acceptability of a nomination. However, unless there is clear evidence of bad faith, editors should continue to assume good faith.

Kumiko has offered no evidence of bad faith, and I hope that he will withdraw the allegation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

First the fact you are an administrator merely means you are popular, not that you actually fully understand the rules and technical workings of things in WP. And I do not mean that in a negative way, with the exception of a few, most admins only use specific tools and rarely use the whole set. I have the knowledge of the system and the technical and I know how to use each and every tool in the admin toolbox but I can't win the popularity contest aspect of being an admin. I'm not "trusted". Too many editors yourself included it seems feel as though Adminship is a badge of knowledge but a lot of us either can't or won't be admins. It doesn't mean we don't know. As for the assumptions of bad faith I may have misworded it a little but here is what I meant. Here is what I meant by the bad faith comment. You submitted a large number of categories all relating to a specific project(Military history and Awards and decorations) with so much as a note on their project page, did not leave a note on the category creators talk pages, did not submit them properly and BrownHairedGirl had to clean them up. The submission virtually ensured and still does, that many would be deleted without review from editor fatigue (unless they care about the category a lot) and the only ones commenting besides me so far are the ones who actively work in Stuff for deletion. The categories are very useful when viewing groups of articles. If you can think of a better way to pull in a group of articles relating to say prisoners of war for example using AWB then I am willing to listen. Also, BrownHairedGirl's suggestion of creating a bunch of project categories is unrealistic and would be simply replacing an easy category structure with an extremely difficult one that no one would use. Far more people add categories to articles than work with talk page banners so doing this would not only be hard from a technical perspective of programming the template it would ensure it wouldn't get used. Kumioko (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)