User talk:Ralbegen

MOS:HON

Hello, sorry for taking up your time but I am rather confused. I have seen the use of Sir/Dame in infoboxes of numerous British politician articles - not his/her own biographical article, e.g. as in predecessor and successor of an office. I was just trying to comply with this convention; as you've pointed out I misunderstood the guideline, is there any way I can maintain the convention in British political articles? Thanks in advance and take care. NYKTNE (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi NYKTNE, nothing to apologise for! I think the guideline is that if the honorific is longstanding then there's not a pressing reason to remove it. My approach is to presume against including it and never to add it anywhere. Especially for modern politicians (as opposed to aristocrats, for instance) I think it's usually not appropriate to use "Sir" or "Dame", or to refer to them as "The Baron ____" if they're a peer. Using common, normal names wherever possible! Ralbegen (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. Hope you are safe and well in these circumstances. Although I understand your point of view, I do find myself sticking to my original opinion, which is, unfortunate the opposite of yours, to include Sir/Dame and to use "The Lord XXX" with the rationale behind it being that the person is entitled to be addressed in his/her full title and that it has been a convention in British politicians articles to use Sir YYY XXX and The Lord XXX in Wikilinks, especially in infoboxes. I really do apprehend that normal names are simpler and easier to be understood, but Wikipedia needs to let our readers know the person's official title and the formal way to address that person. NYKTNE (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daniel Kawczynski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

David Evans (political official)

The source may be primary but is perfectly satisfactory for such a basic fact as a date of birth it is not contentious. Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Theroadislong:, WP:BLPPRIMARY which I linked to in my edit summary says Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, which I think is pretty unambiguous? Ralbegen (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Next United Kingdom general election

I do not understand what's the issue here. I was explaining the context of a quoted comment of mine from a discussion that took place one year ago. I explicitly avoided giving out the name of any user so as to avoid any sense of bad faithing, but this is what happened at the time: there was an edit war about adding/removing the infobox, a discussion took place, a consensus arose for keeping the infobox (and TILE was favoured over TIE for "next elections"), but then another edit warring ensued because a number of (previously undiscussed) issues were subsequently brought by some of the users that had pushed for the infobox's removal (such as raising the flag issue). My quoted comment was written within that context, and that is what I felt in the need to explain to avoid misinterpretations of my own words. So for you to know, I did not write it to appeal to any user in particular, nor to keep a discussion on it, nor was thinking on any specific user when I wrote it. Cheers. Impru20^talk 10:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Impru20: Thank you, I'm glad that you weren't aiming it at any user in particular. But I still think that saying that users were "mutilating" the infobox is an accusation of bad-faith editing, compounded by the suggestion that they were doing so because their preferred option wasn't consensus in a discussion. I think the way you've phrased your summary of the events here is significantly preferable. Thanks again for engaging. Ralbegen (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack Buckby

Check the Talk page on Jack Buckby.