User talk:AJD

Welcome!

Hello, AJD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Robdurbar 08:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jack_Cunningham.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jack_Cunningham.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jamie_Reed.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jamie_Reed.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, did you get permission to use this pic on Wikipedia only, or did they specifically agree to release the pic under a Creative Commons Share Alike, derivatives license? If they only specifically agreed to the former it should be tagged {{promo}} as permission to use on Wikipedia only isn't accepted as all material must be availiable to be exploited commercially. Arniep 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Messy edit?

Re: Jack Cunningham: why is removing unnecessary postnominal letters and reverting an image caption to the standard font weight a "messy edit"?

• Image captions do not need to be in bold. If they did, it would be part of the template.
• We don't use postnominal letters for qualifications. PhD isn't so out of the ordinary, and if we include that we would have to include all honorary degrees. Some people have those numbering in double figures, so that would be messy!
• The other postnominal letters are given in the opening line of the article, so don't really need to be repearted here (although I would be prepared to compromise on that).
• The prefix is always "The Rt Hon.". In addition, a substantive peer is always "The Lord..." To anyone in the know, at present it just looks... messy.

All of these are conventions used in other articles, so as it stands the article is inconsistent with others. JRawle (Talk) 16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear, me. As someone else "in the know", the image caption uses the style, (if not the typesetting), employed by Cunningham, himself.

• Cunningham has used these three sets of post-nominal letters since being ennobled. This is the only place in the article where his name is displayed as he'd wish.
• His PhD isn't honorary; he's always used Dr., a title, as anyone in the know would know, that isn't employed by a peer. Hence, the lettering.
• The use of the definite article and the full stop are not de jure, though possibly de rigueur. The article can be dropped in modern typography for aesthetic reasons: avoiding repetition and reducing clutter, the use of 'The' twice in this title being understood. Short forms can be employed where it doesn't produce misunderstanding, e.g., in the display of dates. Today's date can be expressed thus 5 September 2006 or in full, the fifth day of September in the twenty-hundred and sixth year of Our Lord. I will grant you that the full title is The Right Honourable and he is a substantive peer. However, it is not necessary to use either in full, especially if it is the convention of the holder.
• And finally, if you are going to use a full stop to indicate an abbreviation, at least use it consistently, e.g., Rt.Hon. and Ph.D., and not Rt Hon.

Right on? AJD 18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying the caption is "incorrect" in the wider sense. It's just not the way it's done in other articles on Wikipedia. I don't know if it's really the style "employed by Cunningham, himself", but there are life peers who would write their names as "Lord John Smith", which is incorrect, so it's not always best to copy the way they do it (which, of course, is usually written by minions and not by the person in question anyway).

I'll leave the definite articles out, although I can't guarantee certain other editors won't add them if they happen to look at the article. As for full stops, I'm not a fan of them myself. However, the convention in British English, if full stops are used, is that they are only used where a word is truncated, not where it's contracted so that the final letter stays the same. Hence "Rt Hon." not "Rt. Hon." This is why "Mr." and "Dr." are Americanisms.

I know his PhD is not an honorary degree. Honorary doctorates such as DSc, LLD, etc. are actually higher degrees than PhD. So if you include PhD, you will need 7 or 8 sets of letters for some people's honorary degrees. We really don't include academic degrees as postnominals on Wikipedia.

So I'll remove the bold font and PhD from the image caption. I'll leave the rest for other editors to consider in the future. JRawle (Talk) 22:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yawn* Ok, you do that. I'll add his style to the article.

Wikipedia will be the worse if it remains a pedants' corner. Saying that something is "just not the way it's done in other articles" stifles enlightenment. However, even a cursory glance through articles on life peers reveals a multitude of styles. Move to other individuals and you'll find that most have fashioned their own identity: Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner is known as Sting; Anthony Charles Lynton Blair is known as Tony Blair. These are not the only styles by which they're known, but they're the ones they want us to use. I know life peers who do insist on the use of their given name. And I ask why not? We shouldn't be dictating the form of people's identities. Would you change the entry for every woman who has not taken her husband's surname?

AJD 07:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought Wikipedia is one place where pedantry is a virtue. There have to be guidelines for articles to be consistent.

For names, there are clear guidelines. See here. The article title should be the name the person is commonly known as, e.g. Tony Blair. The opening line, in bold, is the person's full name, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. We used to add "The Right Honourable" to the start of articles, but after discussion is was agreed not to do this. You could now come along and insist on adding this to the start of Jack Cunningham's article, just as you insist on including PhD, but it would go against the consensus reached by other editors. If, on the other hand, you strongly believe PhD should be included if someone always uses it, please discuss it on the relevant talk page. Maybe people will think it's a good idea, and the policy will change. Wikipedia isn't static. Guidelines and policies change and evolve. But individual editors can't just change them unilaterally.

In England and Wales, people can change their name to whatever the like. There's no need to sign a Change of Name Deed. The new name becomes their legal name, so should be the one used in Wikipedia articles (with their birth name noted separately, as per the Manual of Style). Women can take their husband's name on marriage or not, the article should reflect this. I'm not sure which way round your asking "would I change it", but I'd only change an article if it wasn't the name the lady in question used after marriage (it's actually not always easy to determine which name women prefer, but we should do our best).

From the laws surrounding personal names, you could change your name and call yourself "Lord John Doe" if you liked. It wouldn't make you a peer. Equally, Jack Cunningham could call himself Lord Jack Cunningham, but that's the same as being "Dr L. J. Cunningham". Being a peer is quite different. The title is created by the Queen by Letters Patent. Unlike a name, it can't be changed on a whim. So although Lord Cunnnigham of Felling is just as entitled to call himself "Lord Jack Cunningham" as you are to call yourself "Lord John Doe", that doesn't make it a title of peerage. If he simply prefers to be known as Jack Cunningham rather than Lord Cunningham of Felling, that's another matter – one's his name, the other's his title – and is reflected in this page being as simply Jack Cunningham. (Note that I'm not saying he ever calls himself Lord Jack Cunningham as he probably doesn't, it's just an example.)

That's a bit of a sidetrack. The Jack Cunningham does already say he has a PhD in the appropriate place. I can sort of see what you are getting at, though: he was always "Dr..." before his enoblement, so now use of Dr is awkward, he's "... PhD". So why not explain that in the text? JRawle (Talk) 16:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, JRawle: you read, but you don't appear to comprehend. I am aware of what you have pontificated on, and, indeed, have corrected edits to follow conventions when they've been pointed out to aid understanding and knowledge. I have also accepted the changes that have been made in the relevant article. I have even learned something. My beef is that you appear to have set yourself to be the arbiter of how someone should be identified. Yes, Letters Patent bestows the new title upon the individual, and that title should be in the Wikipedia article. However, you should allow the common name/style, as well.

My rhetorical question about a woman's right to choose how they are known, I thought, was self-explanatory. You can't stick to a convention when modern usage has changed. Another example is the phasing out of the social rank Esquire. Or is it your intention and Wiki-mission to correct every eligible entry to reflect this outdated title? Actually, you needn't answer that.

AJD 17:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's up to all editors to correct articles that contain errors, and you seem to be doing that yourself, so that's good. I actually agree with almost all the examples that you give, and with the fact that we should use people's preferred names in articles. (Don't you think Esquire is silly? Most people aren't entitled to it anyway, despite what banks might think!)

One exception would be where peers use the form "Lord/Baroness Forename Surname" which is obviously incorrect – I can think of one female life peer who does that, yet even her party, the Lib Dems (hardly the most traditional lot) don't list her as that on their website. And the House of Lords certainly doesn't. But this is an aside, and was never really the issue with this article.

You say Cuningham always styles himself "Rt Hon Lord Cunningham of Felling, PC DL PhD", yet I don't believe that. You mean whenever he signs his name it's Rt Hon Lord Cunningham of Felling, PC DL PhD. He books a table at a restaurant, it's "for Rt Hon Lord Cunningham of Felling, PC DL PhD". He introduces himself, it's "I'm Rt Hon Lord Cunningham of Felling, PC DL PhD, pleased to meet you." Of course not! Each place will call him something different. Each reference on the web is slightly different. Different postnominals will be included. He may or may not use Rt Hon. The typesetting (regarding full stops, commas, etc.) will be different. So which form do we choose for Wikipedia? Different forms are appropriate for different occasions. So on Wikipedia we use the Wikipedia form.

Anyway, if Wikipedia policy was not to use his preferred name, this article would be at John Cunningham (UK politician)! JRawle (Talk) 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)