User talk:Belbury

Cap badge article

Regarding your edit there, have you seen the greater variety of photographs of badges on commons? Here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cap_badges Dreddmoto (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dreddmoto: I didn't look that far, the one that was already further down in the article seemed fine, with a bit of cropping. You're welcome to change the lead image if you think a different example would be more illustrative of the concept. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, perhaps. I just wanted to show you that there are more choices of photograph available. Maybe one of these? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OSCE_cap_badge.jpg or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:P%26O_Cruises_-_Officer_Cap_Badge.jpg You can choose. --Dreddmoto (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dreddmoto: Seems better to show a photo of a cap on a person's head, to me, for clear context and scale. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. That last point was helpful to me. --Dreddmoto (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A Snack!

GabberFlasted has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Even though that alt account was an imposter, thanks for pinging me! That could have been bad. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

GabberFlasted (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Ghost hunting and charlatans

Hello, I recently received the following message from you, after linking the Wikipedia page on charlatans, to the ghost hunting page: " Hello, I'm Lord Belbury. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ghost hunting seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lord Belbury (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC) "

I responded in the reply underneath the message, but since you asked me to message you on your talk page if I believed the edit was a mistake, I'll post my reply here as well: " Ghosts are objectively fake. Ghost hunting is often done by individuals who are taking advantage of the ignorant for profit and should link to the Wikipedia page on charlatans. That page discusses famous spiritualists who have been caught lying and faking evidence of ghosts with pseudoscience. Please consider adding the charlatan link back to the ghost hunting page, for the sake of truth and to protect the innocent people who are being lied to." Thank you for your consideration, sincerely, Michael Leary Michaelterryleary (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Dead character costume main image

Hey thanks for the quick edit and for finding the NCIS pic. I think that's a great additional image. However like you said the quality is lower and I'd also prefer to keep it consistent with the images of the scrubs pic. I have a lot more pics from a recent short we did and will upload that instead when I get around to it :) Cheers Adenosine Triphosphate (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Adenosine Triphosphate: Sounds great, my main consideration was avoiding the repetition of an image within the article. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

yep no worries cheers :) Adenosine Triphosphate (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I kinda want to use the pics with the squibs as an 'easter egg' in some of the articles like jacket and down jacket (with or without mentioning it explicitly in the caption), thoughts? Adenosine Triphosphate (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Adenosine Triphosphate: Sorry, didn't occur to me that this was intentional, I thought you must have added them before uploading the non-squib images.

That kind of secret content goes against some of the style guide. There's one actually called MOS:EASTEREGG which discourages links that only make sense after the reader has clicked them (so we shouldn't casually write about a parka with embedded squib implying that it's a regular part of the jacket, it should be written out in full that it's a bullet squib for a film shoot), and MOS:IMAGEQUALITY prefers images that don't have unnecessary extra details (Rice is best represented with an image of plain rice, not fried rice).

Using a photo with a squib without mentioning that fact would be okay, Wikipedia often uses a photo with some weird photobomb or other detail if it's all we've got. If we have a choice between two photos where one has a surprising detail and one doesn't, though, it'd always be better to use the plain one. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

alright, cheers, you seem to be quite knowledgeable in this regard, much appreciated. i was also curious to see if anyone would notice the squibs on the clothes - normally in many movies they are still quite visible (but in theory, they should be quite well hidden), so they usually get the actor to change clothes just before and cut to the scene where the person gets shot. i'll keep working on these topics as I think it's been long overdue to have it on wikipedia. a lot of information on the internet is just patchy.

how did you first come across these articles by the way? they are quite niche topics to search for! Adenosine Triphosphate (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Adenosine Triphosphate: I saw one of your photos go up on Commons and went through to read the article. I always like reading up on niche topics, to learn something new and to maybe fix up or flag some obvious errors or omissions. Nice to see an expert offering their knowledge, and particularly good to see someone contributing professional photos to articles that lack them. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Have You Heard of Schellevis—Mie?

About this sock puppetry, I am sorry. However, I would agree to halting completely if you please, please let the page I indicated here alone. It is an honest addition.

-User:Kaos2215 Kaos2215 (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kaos2215: Suggest appealing your original block if you intend to contribute to Wikipedia and want other editors to review your edits. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Tucson Gay Museum/Arizona LGBTQIA Archives

That Tucson Gay Museum/Arizona LGBTQIA Archives article could use some help? Seems maybe the article got mixed between those two museums/archiving efforts, but maybe each effort/organization/archives/museum should stand by itself as its own article? The text/references/article there now seems to be documenting the Tucson Gay Museum. Should it be made into a solely Tucson Gay Museum article? Desertscribe (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Desertscribe: Hello. My understanding from their 2020 press release was that the Tucson Gay Museum no longer existed, and had been merged into the Archives. The only changes I made were to rename the article and to update the logo/infobox/link. If I've misunderstood the situation, let me know, or start a talk page thread to sort things out. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Lord Belbury! Seems there a couple of 'related' 'all in the family' LGBTQ+ museum archiving efforts there and they each appear to stand on their own and are active. Tucson Gay Museum [tucsongaymuseum.org], [tucsonlgbtqmuseum.org], and the [arizonalgbtqiaarchives.org]. Desertscribe (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Desertscribe: Okay, I guess I misunderstood their press release, and whatever else I might have read at the time. I'll move it back to the previous title. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I might add some references and links to that article. Your advice and help is appreciated! Desertscribe (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Precision

You recently changed my "thousands of dollars in today's money" in the article Ciro's (London) with a precise figure in pounds sterling. You clearly understand the difference between accuracy and precision, as the coordinates you gave for its location are not precise to the millimetre or even metre, yet we now have "£1,106" for an typical night's spend (and my conversion of "10 guineas" to £10/10 is already excessively precise when the original author almost certainly meant it as a "ballpark figure"), translated across a hundred years. There are many ways of converting values across the years, and they give widely different results. I also contend that "thousands of dollars" in today's money is readily understood by any reader where "£1,000–£1,500" may not. The fines quoted later are historically accurate, but a conversion, even if its basis (artisan's wages? / bundle of groceries?) were specified, adds nothing to the article. Doug butler (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Doug butler: Thank you for catching that, I must have glossed over the "might" when reading the sentence.

Looking at inflation rates, which spiked during WW1, it makes a significant difference which year Haskell was harking back to. If he was referring to 1912 prices, that's around £1100 today; if he was talking about prices at the time of the club's closure in 1916, that's only £800. It's even possible that he was thinking in present-day 1917 terms, in which case a night at Ciro's was a mere snip at £600.

I've put it back into a footnote clarifying that the year is speculative (1916 seems most likely, I think?), and rounding the figure to the nearest hundred. As an article about a London club, it should use pounds rather than dollars per MOS:MONEY. I think it's worth using a template that will be updated automatically in the future. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this the right spot

This is reply to your comments about the National varieties of English regarding the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_centre You are ruining the encyclopedia function of WIKI by be militant British. You are doing it to the extend of misquoting the source. The IMF defines: International Financial CentER (IFC). Described by the IMF https://www.imf.org/external/np/mae/oshore/2000/eng/back.htm Some other organization is called Global Financial Centres Index (2007–ongoing) And you keep it that way. Honour AND HONOR the source. If you want to be militant about it than the max you can go is: International Financial CentER (IFC). Described by the IMF as a centre. That is weird but fine. Better to recognize that the IFC is an American English concept.

I did by the way add that to the talk page. And I might have deleted something before. But it is always british people complaining about and putting British English marks on articles that don't need or deserve that. This is one that CANNOT have it if you want to stay fair.

I know the rule and it seems that last line was added to it more recently. But the rule was al can co-exist. But you still cannot misquote and you do EXACTLY that. 76.133.57.207 (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Financial centre is the right spot to discuss this with other editors. If I'm wrong about the IMF using both spellings interchangeably, or about how MOS:RETAIN might apply to the article, please let me know there.

I'm not "militant British", I regularly expand US English articles by writing in US English, and would be applying WP:ENGVAR the same if the situation were reversed. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Uw-copying-nosource

Template:Uw-copying-nosource has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-copying. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Madeley Junction, Staffordshire for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Madeley Junction, Staffordshire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeley Junction, Staffordshire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Madeley Junction, Shropshire

The article Madeley Junction, Shropshire has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

None of the sources give any real detail about the junction itself, mostly talking about the signal box (which realistically will not be notable at all) - proposing deletion for this reason.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Patcham Pylon

Thanks for finding that possible source of the quote: I had often wondered where it was from! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hassocks5489: Thanks! Both may be quoting something else, but the Welsh door explanation was at least in print prior to the pylons being built. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It was right to mark that edit as minor

Just note I did partially change the edit back to the previous edit I did before. And it was right to mark my first edit to the World Health Organization page as "minor" since in the explanation for what a "minor edit" is, it notes that when you add a wikilink, which is what I did, it's only considered a "minor edit". Sorry for the misunderstanding. Also see my edit summary in my most recent edit to the WHO page for my explanation as to why my partial revert of your reversion of my first edit to that page. LudditeOne (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@LudditeOne: No problem, and I stand corrected on wikilinks being considered minor.

There is a bigger WP:EGG "easter egg" issue in your rewrite of the sentence, though. A reader of Wikipedia should always have a good idea of what to expect when they click a link. Someone reading a sentence of

The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible

may conclude (without hovering their mouse to check the target) that the "specialized agency" link isn't of any interest to them, because they already understand what it means for an agency to specialise in something. If the link is extended to specialized agency of the United Nations, that makes it clear that Wikipedia has some kind of article about the UN's specialized agencies.

You're right that it helps for there to be a clear link the UN article as early as possible, though. I guess that could be done by just mentioning the UN again later in the text. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Chico Marx article hatnote

Hello - FYI, the reason I [added the note at the top of the page for Chico Marx is that I was looking at something about Leonard Marks and I realized that Leonard Marx is currently a redirect to Chico. Because the surnames are homophones, I added the note. Would there be a better way to address this? Thanks KConWiki (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@KConWiki: I see! There's the {{redirect}} template to catch an incoming redirect term, although I don't know Wikipedia's exact policy on homophones. It seems okay, though, I'll add it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

OK great - Thanks for taking a look and thanks for your contributions. KConWiki (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Predicted impact events

Hi, I rolled back your category addition at Category:Predicted impact events. The category is for past impacts which were predicted in advance. (It's very hard to predict impact events before they happen!) So future events does not apply.

If you have a suggestion for a better category name, I'm all ears.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@CRGreathouse: Careless of me not to have read the article names more closely! Apologies for the error. No issue with the category name at all. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll add a description to the category to clear this up for future users. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

edit to NFT page

hi , you just reverted some carefully made changes to the NFT page , which updated it to take into account Ethereum's move to a proof-of-stage from proof-of-work consensus mechanism. Your reversion is an error that makes the page out of date and incorrect. Jeremy rutman (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Punk Hair by Keishii Roo.jpg

Hi @Belbury, can you re-upload this file locally if you want to use it? Because it's a screenshot from the game second life, the person who uploaded it to flickr doesn't actually have the rights to it, and so couldn't have released it under CC-BY-SA. Thanks! Alyo (chat·edits) 14:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Decentraland and Ethereum

Hi! Regarding to the change on the Decentraland short description wanted to point out a couple of issues: Ethereum is the name of a blockchain, the cryptocurrency is ether. And Decentraland does not accept ether as a payment in any way. I'm sorry I can't edit it directly due to conflict of interests. Bests. Eibriel (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)