Jump to content

User talk:Neveselbert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silcox (talk | contribs) at 05:49, 20 December 2023 (Notification: listing of P. W. at WP:Redirects for discussion.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

About the 2005 MP portraits

You know the UK member of parliament portraits published in 2005 you've used on several pages? Where can I find them, I want to see them in higher resolution and use them for my projects. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlakeIsHereStudios. I found the portraits off of Google, and you'll probably be able to find higher resolution versions of them in a reverse image search. I would be mindful of the copyright situation for the high-resolution versions, though, as they appear to have been licensed commercially, unlike the lower-resolution versions which can be found online in news articles, etc. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Cooke postnominals

Hi,

Yesterday I edited "Alistair Cooke" to fix a disambiguation link added by a passing IP editor. Looking back through the edit history I noticed you'd removed the postnominals in March. MOS:POSTNOM would seem to permit them. I've no strong opinion either way, although if they stay, of course they should be corrected to KBE (KBEh). Any thoughts? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jean-de-Nivelle. Seeing as Cooke was no longer a British/Commonwealth citizen at the time of his award or by the time of his death, I wouldn't think it appropriate to include the post-nominals in Cooke's article, in accordance with MOS:POSTNOM. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Category:Foreign Ministers of X

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Category:Foreign Ministers of X on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous policy interpretation

Regarding your edits to the following pages, Margaret Thatcher and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

First off with the Margaret Thatcher page you state that Wikipedia:NOPIPE doesn't apply because there's no pipe, which isn't true; the policy states:

First of all, keep links as simple as possible:

  • Avoid making links longer than necessary:

☒N [[George Washington|President George Washington]]

checkY President [[George Washington]]

Which clearly mandates title outside the brackets.

Secondly your reversion to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh cites Wikipedia:NOTBROKEN and MOS:JOBTITLES. Looking at both of those in turn, NOTBROKEN says: That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] or [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]] just to "fix a redirect".

None of those cited examples include 'president' in the link, therefore indicating its an improper form. For the record I was not changing a redirect, but removing the title from the link as per NOPIPE. With JOBTITLES, the guidance reads: When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II).

I accept that I got this wrong in the Prince Philip article when amending the King to the king, but the above passage again removes the title Queen from the link. Based on the above I think it's pretty clear that titles don't belong in links. Ecrm87 (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ecrm87. First of all, the example you give of [[George Washington|President George Washington]] is not the same as [[President George Washington]]. In my understanding, the difference with kings and queens is that the title "King" or "Queen" is not just a job title, it's their personal title, which makes linking them together with the name more desirable, much like linking "Sir" in Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet or indeed "Mahatma" in Mahatma Gandhi. Also, it's more consistent such as in cases where Queen Victoria is linked, making a link to George III as King George III appear inconsistent by comparison. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true then the Elizabeth II page would be titled Queen Elizabeth II and encyclopaedia entries on Louis XIV would be titled King Louis XIV. This is not the case and never has been. Ecrm87 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that isn't necessary for disambiguation purposes. In the case of Queen Victoria, it is deemed necessary. If, by some chance in the future, states and capitals are named "Elizabeth II" or "Louis XIV", it's possible that both articles would be renamed to include their titles. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By that same argument Elisabeth II, Abbess of Quedlinburg would be Princess-Abbess Elisabeth II of Quedlinburg. But she isn't, because it violates the above policies. Monarchs' titles aren't part of their names, and for that matter the 'Sir' in the Sir George Stokes title shouldn't be there either, see Rowland Hill or Robert Peel (2nd baronet). Consistency has already been achieved with a simple policy; no title in the link or page title. Why go against this? Ecrm87 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but a link to Princess-Abbess Elisabeth II of Quedlinburg would be entirely acceptable in prose. Monarch's titles are often treated as part of their names, hence Queen Victoria. Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet conforms to WP:NCBRITPEER because the name is ambiguous, George Stokes being a disambiguation page. The consistency you refer to applies to page titles, not wikilinks. There is no hard-and-fast rule against including "King" or "Queen", or even "President" (e.g. President Biden), inside links. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've literally quoted you the rule!! 'Avoid making links longer than necessary'. I didn't realise Sir George Stokes needed disambiguating, but apparently you don't realise that Queen Victoria is also a disambiguation; Victoria of the United Kingdom (disambiguation), this is why there's a 'Queen' in the title at all. Ecrm87 (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that rule is not absolute. Queen Victoria has a disambiguation page, but it's still the primary topic for that title and indeed Victoria of the United Kingdom. For consistency's sake, there's nothing wrong in including "King" or "Queen" in a link, given the Queen Victoria situation. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Victoria is an exception, not the rule. 99% of other monarch's pages do not include King or Queen in the title. As far as I can tell there are only four pages that do. To be consistent the title should be removed. Titles aren't in the page titles, there's no need for them in a link and it breaks the 'keep links short' rule. Based off going against a rule and going against consistency there's nothing to justify your points. In fact based on consistency alone the Queen Victoria page should be renamed. Ecrm87 (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it hasn't been renamed, and most incoming links to Queen Victoria are as Queen Victoria, such as on Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, which is why I believe we should be consistent on "King" or "Queen" within links throughout the article. As for Margaret Thatcher, I'll concede the point there, and you can remove "Queen" from the link there if you really want to. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem with using Queen Victoria as there isn't a better alternative and adding a pipe just to remove the title would itself violate the rule. The trouble with being consistent with the one article as you propose is that it doesn't equal consistency across wikipedia as a whole. It means every article that mentions Queen Victoria even once will have to follow this example and that doesn't do much for consistency. It would be better to use Queen Victoria for all links talking about her and move the title out of the links for everyone else. Ecrm87 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't agree with that. Consistency across Wikipedia as a whole is regulated by the Manual of Style, and neither style of including the title within the link or outside violates MoS. So it should depend per article, such as if Queen Victoria is linked like so. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it looks like we're not going to agree, would you mind if I asked for a third opinion? Ecrm87 (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It probably makes sense to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Administrator changes

added
removed
renamed Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amess murder discussion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_David_Amess#Should_this_article_reflect_trial_accounts_of_the_attack/Ali’s_behaviour

I have added a discussion on the death article talk if it should reflect trial accounts of the event.

By the way, thanks for your edits on the main article on Amess92.17.199.182 (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"P. W." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect P. W. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20 § P. W. until a consensus is reached. Silcox (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neveselbert&oldid=1190849186"