Talk:Captain Tom Moore

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.69.34.203 (talk) at 20:42, 16 July 2020 (→‎Medals). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Tabletop123 (Tabletop123). Expanded by Pigsonthewing (talk). Nominated by Whizz40 (talk) at 15:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • I would suggest using the second one, but amending it to say "99-year-old Captain Tom Moore" and would suggest that "walking laps of his garden" would be more accurate than "walking around his garden". The latter implies that he just walked around a bit. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added an Alt. It is going to need adjustment as he may be 100 by the time it goes live and the total is changing daily. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to schedule this for 30 April, his 100th birthday, and re-word accordingly. We could also mention his UK number one single; and in any case should update the sum raised, which is still climbing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Very interesting man, with a life worth mentioning on this encyclopedia. I've updated the amount raised to over £28.7 million, per the current stats in his article. Whomever adds this to a queue and whomever adds this to the main page should feel free to update it again if seen fit. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since this has just been moved to the special occasions section to run on April 30, Moore's impending hundredth birthday, I'm revising the hook accordingly:
    • ALT1b: ... that Captain Tom Moore, who turns 100 today, has raised more than £28.7 million for NHS Charities Together by walking laps of his garden? —BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • ALT1b hook looks good to go; birthday is verifiable. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can we rescue the original picture of him in uniform which was deleted on Commons because expired Crown copyright was not proven? The only image in the article at the moment is fair use. Perhaps we can get the uniformed picture released if the expired copyright can't be proved? Philafrenzy (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about appending "...and is No 1 in the UK singles charts" [also, that figure in the hook is already out of date; please check the latest figure before posting]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)?[reply]
  • Hi, I came by to promote ALT1b (ALT1c is rapidly losing hookiness as more info is being tacked on), but the article is tagged with a move request. Yoninah (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt1c, as suggested by Andy, remains interesting, I think, and is quite incredible for a 100 year old, and also meets criteria. What do others think? The move request is ongoing but a consensus appears to be forming. I asked that it be closed before the article goes on the Main page; if not I would just suggest we remove the tag for that day as it is not an orange or red tag. Does that work? Whizz40 (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1c is just a bunch of information about someone who's 100 years old. It tells you everything you need to know and there's no need to click on the article. ALT1b, with the words by walking laps of his garden adds some hookiness interest and would make me want to click on it to find out more. Yoninah (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Alt1b as updated for the exact total. And Captain Tom Moore in the hook even if they haven't agreed to move it back yet (which they should notwithstandng policy arguments). The idea of raising money by walking laps is what he is know for. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yoninah, I don't think this nomination should risk missing its special occasion date—a hundredth birthday, about as special as you can get—because of a move discussion. Let's get it into prep now. If the article is moved before April 30 (I'm assuming we're going for the 00:00 UTC set), we change the bold link in the hook and the first parameter of the DYKmake and DYKnom templates for it. If it hasn't as of 24 hours before, we request in the move discussion that the move not happen right before or while the article is on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. On a pure numerical basis, the supports are in the majority, but not overwhelmingly so. I've long been skeptical of the use of COMMONNAME as a thought-terminating cliche, and this is another case. Is "Captain Tom Moore" indeed the most common name used to refer to the bloke? I don't believe the evidence is overwhelming. Indeed, Deb points out that, really, there is an argument that the common name is simply "Captain Tom". Other users, such as Andrew Gray and Epicgenius, point out that there's a very high bar for military ranks in article titles, pointing to the (lack of) rank in the article title for Douglas MacArthur. All this leads me to a general reading that there isn't a strong enough consensus to deviate from common practice to move. As an aside, I also share, to a degree, Werldwayd's concerns that Moore is only notable for one event, but in my own personal opinion, him holding the record for "oldest chart-topper" makes himself just about notable outside the charity event, and in any case, RM is not AfD. Sceptre (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Tom Moore (fundraiser) → Captain Tom Moore – Continuing on from the previous move discussion, proposing move to Captain Tom Moore per WP:COMMONNAME. When searching in Google for "Tom Moore" the most common results are "Captain Tom Moore".[1]. Note: this article is scheduled to be on the main page on April 30th for the subject's 100th birthday, would be good to close this move discussion before then if possible. Whizz40 (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support That's how everyone refers to him. Should never have been moved in the first place. He is not a professional fundraiser. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support again per WP:COMMONNAME SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Stronach (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME - even though we don't normally include ranks. - Arjayay (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stated "we don't normally include ranks", but notwithstanding the arguments by Deb and Andrew Gray below, I think this is a case of WP:IAR - Arjayay (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If you really want to use the common name, everyone calls him "Captain Tom". Otherwise, let's keep to the naming standards. Deb (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note, when searching in Google for "Captain Tom", there are 26 mentions on the first page of "Captain Tom Moore" or "Cpt Tom Moore" out of 36 mentions of "Captain Tom" or "Cpt Tom" (excluding the search term). In everyday speech, "Captain Tom" may be more common, but "Captain Tom Moore" seems to be common online and in the news.[2] In the References section of the article, there are currently 25 sources with "Captain/Capt Tom Moore" in the title out of 33 that include "Captain/Capt Tom" in the title. None of the sources that include his name in the title omit Captain/Capt. Whizz40 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deb has a point about following the naming standards. One aspect of this case is that, while the subject is notable, i.e. there are reliable sources covering his biography, including his life story and military service, and there is general interest in the subject that goes beyond the original fundraising effort (as discussed in the previous Move discussion above), it's his personality as "Captain Tom Moore" that is publicly known for raising money for charity. In addition, it's not his former military rank that gives rise directly to the prefix "Captain" in the article title, as that is not usually used after retirement and is not used under the article naming standards, it's simply become his commonly known name and this gives rise to the article title as per the policy cited. Whizz40 (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as others have said, it should be move based on WP:COMMONNAME Jezzerdo4 (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – A nearly 100 year old man should not be described on an article title as a fundraiser, he is an army captain and that is an appropriate name. JE98 (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - no need to repeat comments above ... Roy Bateman (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; we have a very strong convention against using rank prefixes in article names, even when they're very commonly known by that name (cf Captain Scott, Sergeant York). It's been a while since I looked at it, but at one point I think I went through all our rank-prefixed titles and every single one was a fictional character; we didn't use this format for any actual humans. If we want to avoid using "(fundraiser)", then switch the disambiguator to something else, but it feels really awkward to use the rank instead. The article naming conventions, as well as recommending "common names", also notes that "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles" is a key issue to consider. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree convention and consistency are important. It seems there is no good suffix to use to use to replace (fundraiser) [e.g. what about (Captain Tom) or (charity fundraiser) to make it clearer?] so there's no way for the reader to know they reached the right page from the article title alone, in fact the article title might make them question that; then they have to read the first paragraph to work it out, or look at the photograph and info box which do make it clear. Whizz40 (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME. I think the arguments made by Andrew and Deb are reasonable, but in this case I believe we should go with what the preponderance of sources refer to the article subject as. And the reliable source consensus is clear: this man is known by Captain Tom Moore or Captain Tom. Where our precedent and consistency comes in is by choosing Captain Tom Moore over Captain Tom, and that to me is a logical compromise while ensuring we only report what sources have reported. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME. I was going to propose this myself once the above request was closed, but was evidently beaten to it. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 07:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If his military rank is the preferred disambiguator, it should be formatted like Richard Arnold (general) or Stephen Vincent Benet (Army General) or Edward Backhouse (British Army officer) or any one of the hundreds of other similarly-formatted article titles for military officers. ST47 (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we don't use ranks in article titles, and Andrew Gray's example of Sergeant York in particular. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JHunterJ, ST47, and Andrew Gray: I don't think the army rank is being used as a disambiguator in this case, or particularly as a 'rank' really. It is being used more because it is the only way his name is ever written in the sources, it's part of his public persona. It's a sort of term of fondness or familiarity, tempered with deep respect. It's a bit like Colonel Sanders. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Opposers bring up WP:CONSISTENCY with other titles containing military ranks, but neglect WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:NATURALNESS which disfavor the use of a parenthetical disambiguator when a commonly used WP:NATURALDAB is available. — Wug·a·po·des​ 16:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposal also fairs favourably based on Precision, the 3rd of the 5 WP:CRITERIA. As mentioned higher up, with the current Article title, many readers may not know they are at the right article from the title alone. In terms of Conciseness, there seems to be little difference. In terms of Consistency, Tom Moore (fundraiser) may be preferable. Whizz40 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Andrew Grey's argument. Buttons0603 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. I find the 'fundraiser' in parentheses is a little odd when he is simply referred to as 'Captain Tom Moore' (or even just 'Captain Tom') by media outlets. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per points made about ranks not being used in article names. I disagree with people supporting per WP:COMMONNAME because the media is just addressing him by his rank, e.g. Bill Clinton's article title wasn't changed to "U.S. President Bill Clinton". Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Current form is consistent with convention on ranks and we shouldn't just invoke WP:COMMONNAME (or for that matter WP:IAR) to echo a catchy title, charming though this one is, bestowed in contemporary media coverage. I don't see that adequately addressed in the supporting comments. Deiz talk 22:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Consider the many number of individuals known by their rank or title. Queen Elizabeth. General MacArthur. Captain Sully. Field Marshal Rommel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.114.185.130 (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the examples you give are referred to as such in their Wikipedia articles. Arcturus (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The suggestion contravenes naming standards. "Captain Tom" is a media manufactured label, and if used in Wikipedia would put Moore on a par with Captain Pugwash. Military personnel articles do not use informalities such as this in the article name. Arcturus (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Arcturus: I think a common name stands, whoever "manufactured" it, and this is definitely his common name. I think it's more like a brand (similar to Colonel Sanders) or even a term of endearment, than an "informality". -- DeFacto (talk). 09:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If we go with that approach the article about Bernard Montgomery would need to be renamed "Monty". I can't find any examples of military men with an article title using a nickname (of course there may be some). Also, if you're going to invoke WP:COMMONNAME then the article would be called "Captain Tom". Arcturus (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Many people are commonly referred to using their ranks, titles, etc. We don't do it; that's our house style. No reason to make an exception here. The title is fine as it is. Although he is a former army officer (war substantive only, not career), he's not notable for being an army officer; he's notable for being a fundraiser. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphasize the event, not the person: I don't agree our famous WP:COMMONNAME rule applies here despite of this rule being quoted by so many of our colleagues above as an argument. I've read the article carefully... thrice. I don't want to belittle Tom Moore's achievement. I admire it and he has done a wonderful job, I must say. But as a whole, based on my reading of the article, there is nothing notable in his military career, and I must admit everything he did in his 100 years is not notable.... except for this last "walk" event at the age of 100. He ran a small charity campaign to collect 1000 pounds, the British public was fascinated and the event flourished into a gradually developing multi-million pounds campaign and all the power to him, let it flourish into 50 million or more, and more power to the supporting public as well. I hope the song brings in tonnes of more millions. We need it. However, a fundamental question that we must ask ourselves is this. Had it not been this 100 lap walking pledge of Mr. Moore, would we have had a Wikipedia article about the gentleman? If the answer as I expect is a clear no (unless we can come up with other notable deeds that he has done or achieved), it makes this particular event a one-event case, and as with almost all one-event cases, it is the event that needs to be reflected in the Wikipedia title, not the person himself. So Captain Tom Moore, Captain Tom and Tom Moore (fundraiser) should be all redirects and we come up with the event as a title for our article, say 2020 Walk for the NHS. My opinion may not be popular, but knowing how Wikipedia articles are formulated, this is a one-event thing. werldwayd (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've commented out the hatnote, as the article is due to be on the main page shortly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposed move would violate Wikipedia's naming conventions. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:IAR doesn't give the right to violate naming conventions; in fact, by COMMONNAME, we can claim "Tom Moore (captain)" is just as suitable as a title. If we must include his title, use it as a disambiguator. Per the anonymous user who supported above, claiming "Queen Elizabeth. General MacArthur. Captain Sully. Field Marshal Rommel." as examples, none of them have their honorific at the beginning of the WP article's title. epicgenius (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Honorary Colonel

There seems to be two schools of thought about whether being an "Honorary Colonel" is "promotion to the rank of Colonel". Most Honrary Colonels listed by the army ([3]) hold some other rank than "Colonel". Perhaps our MILHIST colleagues can advise on how we should express this, and/ or update Colonel (United Kingdom)#Honorary Colonel? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Tom Moore is now a "Colonel of the Regiment" or Honorary Colonel, (that is, he's the Patron), of the Army Foundation College. There are a lot of different titles used for honorary colonels - Prince Harry was Captain General Royal Marines; you will find a Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom; all purely ceremonial and for lobbying for the regiment/organisation's interests. Best article is Colonel-in-chief rather that the colonel article. Right now Captain Tom Moore needs to be added at the very bottom of the list to Colonel-in-chief#United Kingdom - Combat Service Support. However, I've just checked; Colonel (United Kingdom)#Ceremonial usage covers it; any of those top three usages are practically the same. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buckshot06: Thank you. The pressing issue is, is it correct to refer to him as "Colonel Thomas Moore" in the lede and infobox? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rank is entire useable and a correct form of address is Colonel Moore but going on WP:Commonname Captain Tom is always likely to be the name he is known by. I'm just sorry they didn't make him a Major, so we could have endless arguments on the primary topic of Major Tom! Nthep (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You ask about referring to him as "Colonel Thomas Moore" in the lead. The convention is to only begin with rank when it's 1-star or above, so the way you have it now is fine. In the same vein, I wouldn't bother putting ""Captain" (or "Colonel") above his name in the infobox. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, this isn't the convention at all. Many of our articles use lower ranks in the lede if that's how the individuals are commonly referred to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My (slightly above) layman's understanding is that it would be perfectly correct to refer to/address him as Colonel when he's specifically acting as colonel of the unit e.g. if he attended an event at the AFC, he would be introduced as and you would properly address him in those circumstances as Colonel Moore. He is however not a substantive colonel, so in other circumstances should be addressed by his actual rank of Captain. - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to him, in military terms, as Captain Tom Moore, Honorary Colonel, Army Foundation College. The infobox should have the topmost word as Captain, not Hon. Colonel. Should there be any reference to his honorary colonelcy, it has to include the words "Army Foundation College." Thus possibly, should you need an abbreviated title, it would be "Captain Tom Moore, Honorary Colonel, AFC." Buckshot06 (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's some additional back ground here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Andy. That is official from MOD Army Department; use that as a reference for how to refer to him; it's specific to him and up-to-date. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


It should also be noted that Tom was only appointed as Honorary Colonel of the Army Foundation College. The appointment, which is purely ceremonial, does not continue through to either the Yorkshire Regiment or the Duke of Wellington's Regiment. Should Tom visit the College he would wear a Colonels uniform, with Cap Badge, Buttons and red lanyard of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding). NB: He could not be promoted to 'Major' as non serving officers and soldiers cannot be promoted (Mostly as it really upsets the army pensions office). One other bit of helpful info may be that Charles Dent, former CEO of Timothy Taylors Brewery was an Honorary Colonel of the 4th Battalion of the Yorkshire Regiment. Timothy Taylors brewed the 'Dukes' Regimental Beer 'Havercake Ale' ( https://www.beerguild.co.uk/news/timothy-taylor-brew-special-ale-to-celebrate-the-yorkshire-regiment-return-from-afghanistan/ ) and the 8th Duke of Wellington was the Colonel-in-Chief of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, then later a Deputy Colonel of the Yorkshire Regiment. Lewis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.216.145 (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redux

I'm unclear - in the light of the above discussion - why [[Colonel (United Kingdom)#Honorary Colonel|Honorary Colonel]], [[Army Foundation College]] has been removed from |honorific_suffix= in the infobox; especially by people who have not joined that discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Please restore the original excellent photo of Captain Tom in his prime, even if you keep the current one at the head of the article; I’m sure it’s how may people would wish to remember him, notwithstanding his later achievements. Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted from Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation; besides, Moore is clearly "in his prime" today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone able to provide a link to the original image? I'm currently trying to argue against deletion of this photo File:Nathan Wyburn with Tom Moore Foot Painting MNT 0057.jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nathan_Wyburn_with_Tom_Moore_Foot_Painting_MNT_0057.jpg) which is an artwork of the old photo that was originally used in this article. It was uploaded to Commons under public domain. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Mthowells200130 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Magnussen and Pigsonthewing: Edit - photo has been un-deleted as part of a deletion request discussion. It seems the photo can be re-added to the article soon, depending on the discussion. If you have any info about the original source of the image, please consider contributing to the Deletion Request! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nathan_Wyburn_with_Tom_Moore_Foot_Painting_MNT_0057.jpg Mthowells200130 (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Regiment Medal

I have again removed details of Moore's Yorkshire Regiment Medal, which was awarded for his civilian charitable activity, from the section on his military service. It is - rightly - in the section on the recognition of his civilian charitable activity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JustGiving

The only source for the JustGiving: Captain Tom Moore's 100th Birthday Walk for the NHS campaign total figure, raised "by the time the campaign closed at the end of that day", is this one. The last donation was 24 minutes ago, so it's still running and hasn't closed? And that wasn't the total at the end of yesterday? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] The JustGiving page ceased accepting donations at midnight at the end of Moore's birthday; there as a small - insignificant - increase in the amount after that, presumably due to a lag in their systems. Although the citation is dated 1 May, I added that a few minutes after midnight. I have restored the text to that effect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the website say the last donation of £20, by an anonymous donor, was made 50 minutes ago? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The figure in the article main body is now £32,795,725. The figure in the source is £32,795,312. Maybe we should say "over £32.79 million" in both places? But that source still lacks any figure for the "end of 30 April".Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"presumably due to a lag in their systems" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accounting can be messy. Money transfer, credit card, or paypal all can take time.PrisonerB (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've now tweaked the wording to account for this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the amount donated by Gift Aid, shown further down the Just giving page, not included in the total amount raised ? That amount of £6,173,649.56, indicates a total of £38,969,999.56. Lewis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.216.145 (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regimental merger

Hello I note you reverted my edit and reference to factual information on the Tom Moore (fundraiser) Page, regarding the bit about the DWR being merged into the 1st Bn Yorkshire Regiment. I have reverted that and explained why in the Edit Summary. I can understand the need to keep an article factual, but to state something that is blatantly incorrect is not a good idea. Especially as it does not tie in with Other wikipedia articles. May I suggest that you take a look at the Yorkshire Regiment article, specifically the sub para on the regiments formation. Regards Lewis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.216.145 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[moved from my talk page]
The minutiae of regimental mergers are not relevant in the middle of a section on Moore's charitable endeavours. The text you removed in your most recent edit, which I have restored "...the 1st Battalion of the Yorkshire Regiment, the regiment into which the DWR were merged in 2006." is factually correct and supported by sources; and does not say "the DWR merged into the 1st Bn Yorkshire Regiment". Links are provided for people wanting to know the complete details. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't spot the minor rewording (addition of 'the regiment into which it was merged'). I agree that simple change of wording is better, as it does not imply the regiment was merged into the 1st Bn. The word 'merged' is also incorrect in usage, as there was nothing to 'merge' into. On 6 June 2006 three seperate regiments 'amalgamated' to form the Yorkshire Regiment. I do though feel that you could have retained the supporting reference I supplied to the in depth details in the DWR's Veterans associations website. There is additional info about Tom on their Website:- http://www.dwr.org.uk/2020/04/19/tom-moore/ Lewis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.216.145 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News

I've always used {{cite web}} when citing the BBC News website, with "BBC News" as the publisher. Another editor objects to this and keeps changing such citations to {{cite news}}, with "BBC News" as the work. I'm unclear why they're doing this, or why they think their preference trumps mine and that of other editors on this article, and Wikipedia:CITEVAR. The original citation style should be restored, and I propose to do that, unless there is a good reason, and consensus, why we should not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: it's not so much that I "objects to this" or that I think my preference trumps yours, but that I like consistency, specificity and to follow my understanding of the guidelines. I choose {{cite news}} over {{cite web}} because it is described as "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for news articles in print, video, audio or web.", whereas the latter is described as "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template.". So as BBC News articles are characterised (being web news articles) by {{cite news}}, it seems more appropriate. I use "work=" rather than "publisher=" because the template doc says "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)." And btw, the first time citation templates were used in place of bare references in the article, "cite news" was used, with "work=BBC News", for a BBC News article, so I suppose we cannot use WP:CITEVAR to support doing otherwise. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see this distinction makes 0.00% difference to the reader experience. If I had to choose, I would go with {{cite news}}, for the reasons given by DeFacto above. But I also note that running ReFill on a bare www.bbc.co.uk/news/ url will produce {{cite web}} not {{cite news}}. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Captain Tom. We can't look at this move discussion in isolation, but we need to look it in conjunction with the one that was closed by myself not so long back. In that close, I mentioned that there was a case that "Captain Tom" was possibly the COMMONNAME, and in this discussion, there seems to be a consensus developing that is indeed the case. Additionally, there's no consensus in this discussion or the one before it that "Captain Tom Moore" is either the COMMONNAME or in line with WP:TITLESINTITLES. Finally, there to be a consensus forming that Moore is not the primary topic for Tom/Thomas Moore. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Tom Moore (fundraiser) → Tom Moore – This is clearly the primary topic for Tom Moore. Launchballer 01:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No objection. That might be better. He is much more well-known as "Captain Tom". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dylan109 Honorary British Army ranks are not real British Army ranks. But for your !vote to count you might want to sign. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are too many valid options to move this to Tom Moore, but I agree that Captain Tom Moore could be a good alternative given he is well known with his rank and WP:TITLESINTITLES might apply. However, I think the present title is a clear and acceptable disambiguation and so doesn't need to be changed. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 09:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Captain Tom Moore per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLESINTITLES, as in the 25 April 2020 move discussion above (closed as "no consensus" 9 May 2020). -- DeFacto (talk). 09:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, seen as primary topic (particularly in the UK, not sure about elsewhere,) due to a recent news spike, but was almost unknown until recently. The existing title makes it very clear who the article is about, and dropping the disambiguation will only see the article renamed again later when viewed in an historical perspective against all other Tom Moores. Would not have a problem with Captain Tom Moore if it is regarded as commonname as although the only non-fictional examples I've seen with military-themed titles are Colonel Sanders and Colonel Tom Parker, where these used honorary titles not ranks, he is credited as Captain Tom Moore on "you'll never walk alone" where captain could be considered as part of a nickname/stagename. EdwardUK (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Captain Tom per WP:COMMONNAME. JamesVilla44 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the originally requested move. It is far too early to say this Tom Moore meets the second criterion spelled out at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term). Going off the list at Thomas Moore (disambiguation), we have at least two politicians known primarily as Tom Moore, a Super Bowl winning NFL assistant coach, and a member of the National Track and Field Hall of Fame. I'm neutral on the alternative proposal to move this page to Captain Tom Moore. I would hope who ever closes this considers a moratorium considering this is now the third requested move in less than a month. Calidum 15:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are literally dozens and dozens of Tom (or Thomas) Moore's on Wikipedia. While I understand the high profile of the individual at the moment, this does feel a bit of WP:RECENTISM. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Captain Tom Moore or Captain Tom This constitutes a better disambiguation since Tom Moore is too much of a generic name. Alexceltare2 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Pure WP:RECENTISM. He's only primary today, not in long-term significance. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the title as it currently stands. Definitely oppose any inclusion of his rank or title, unless we're going to move all people best-known together with their ranks and titles (that's a large chunk of people who hold them). -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – "Clearly" is not an adequate rationale for a primarytopic takeover. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per discussion and per Thomas Moore if there were to be a primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per discussion - he might be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if this were the British Wikipedia, but it isn't Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are 14 men at the Thomas Moore (disambiguation) page whose articles' main title headers depict the name "Tom Moore". That's far too many for one man to suddenly become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on the basis of attaining fame, quite deservedly, during the pandemic. The existing qualifier "(fundraiser)" is intuitively appropriate, although I would not oppose moving the main header to Captain Tom. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose recentism and globalization, by common name prefer Captain Tom. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Move to Captain Tom in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME Talagan (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to something else a) the present title is crap, but b) the gentleman is not the primary topic for Tom Moore. pbp 20:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not a Sir yet

See [4]- he is on the Birthday Honours, but the ceremony has not yet happened. Until it does, he is not a Sir. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The honour applies immediately, and it is therefore long-standing convention on Wikipedia, as elsewhere, to apply such honorifics as soon as they are announced. Furthermore, your source makes no reference to "the Birthday Honours". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this "long-standing consensus" that it applies immediately? Never seen it before, whereas I have seen multiple articles where we haven't added the Sir until they've actually been knighted. Also, it's only been announced by the BBC not officially yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said "long-standing convention" - just look at the edits made each time an honours list is announced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do sources say "he will be knighted" and not "he has been knighted"? Is there any source that says he's been knighted? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some say one, some say the other; you'd have to ask those to which you refer what they mean. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a Wikipedia process I recognise. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The knighthood applies from its publication in the London Gazette. Until it appears in there (which it hasn't) we should be treating the announcement as a leak: he will be knighted in the future but it yet official. Wiki shouldn't be calling him "Sir Thomas Moore" yet, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. Unless we get a consensus amongst RSs that he has been knightrd, it surely breaks WP:VER and WP:BLP to say he has in Wiki's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He is now officially knighted so it should be changed https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52735192 - AgentJeff07 (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just his letter of nomination from Boris Johnson. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Sir Tom's knighthood has now been published in the Gazette online [5], and will appear in tomorrow's printed edition of the London Gazette. It is backdated to 20 May. He has been made a knight bachelor. Therefore "Sir" should be added in front of his name in the lead and and infobox. JRawle (Talk) 13:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to be bold, and I've made the change. I'm not opposed to waiting until tomorrow's printed edition, either. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Javert2113 I'd agree. The award has been back dated to 20 May. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Type of knighthood

Do we have a source specifying that his knighthood is a KBE? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We'll probably know when he gets his knighthood. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will be announced next Wednesday. NYKTNE (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So until then it's WP:CRYSTAL? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The knighthood is discussed in numerous reliable sources; some cited in the article. That is not CRYSTAL. The type of knighthood does not seem to be, hence my question. Whether that is CRYSTAL, or some other failure, is debatable, but it needs a citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Today is Wednesday. The sources that say "will be formally announced on Wednesday" are dated yesterday, Tuesday. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the officially announcement of the Queen's Birthday Honours, I guess that will make it official, regardless of any future physical ceremony. And it will clearly say if it's a KBE. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of "Birthday Honours". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think we're back in WP:CRYSTAL territory. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The knighthood is discussed in numerous reliable sources; some cited in the article. That is not CRYSTAL." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying it's in the news. It would be very surprising if it did not now get formally announced. I'm denying that it has actually happened. Until it is formally announced, any report of "what type of knighthood" would be speculation. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it will be gazetted. This is not a birthday honours thing, but a special recommendation by the Prime Minister to the Queen. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So for now, until we see official confirmation in the London Gazette, I agree that we should treat the knighthood as something due to happen at some time in the future. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the By, the award is being made through the 2020 Special Honours not the Birthday Honours. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 15:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Imperial Society of Knights Bachelor [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:807D:7E00:49AD:FF3C:BE37:BC19 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/AlastairBruce_/status/1263043292180221952
Twitter isn't a reliable source, wait til it's properly announced in the London Gazette. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It almost certainly will be a Knight Bachelor, I should have thought, but we'll have to wait and see until it's actually gazetted. And yes, we can add the title as soon as it is. No need to wait until he's actually dubbed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medals

It's standard on articles that include lists of medals to have them in order in a single list. User:Pigsonthewing seems insistent on splitting the list up over the page. Are we able to be consistent with this? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 11:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have the reverted addition of Moore's knighthood from the section "§Military service", because it was not awarded in connection with that service, which ended some half a century before he was knighted, and placed the related image instead alongside the text about that 2020 award, under "§Recognition", where treatment of the award was already ample. This is also in accordance with our handling of his Yorkshire Regiment Medal, likewise awarded in 2020, as discussed without opposition on this very talk page and whose placement - similarly under "§Recognition" - has stood by consensus in the article for the last two months. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Yorkshire Regiment Medal isn't an official medal, whereas the Knight Bachelor is, so that's comparing apples and oranges, therefore no consensus stands for changing the previous version which stood for a month unopposed. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 12:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Knight Bachelor isn't a medal, whereas the Yorkshire Regiment Medal is an official medal, officially awarded in an official ceremony, by an official officer of the Yorkshire Regiment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Yorkshire Regiment Medal isn't awarded through the British Honours System and is, therefore, an unofficial medal, so its inclusion would be inappropriate which is why you didn't receive an opposition when you moved it. I did indicate however that the other medals are all awarded under the official system in an edit you reverted. The Knight Bachelor insignia is attached to the ribbon and worn around the neck and also in the same manner as a breast star. Also as indicated in the referenced material is this [6] which shows his WW2 medals mounted with the medal of the Knight Bachelor. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 00:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The YR Medal is and remains official. Your attempt at a refutation here is a straw man, since at no point did I suggest that it was "awarded through the British Honours System". I also don't think anyone is disputing (at least, not recenty) that he was awarded, and thus wears the insigina of, a Knight Bachelorhood. That is why we say as much, as I noted, under "§Recognition". I also note that you do not dispute my point that he was not knighted for his military service. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely missing the point, and I'm guessing not aware of how medals are created and awarded. All official medals are created by a warrant from the sovereign, once that happens they form part of the British Honours System. The Yorkshire Regiment Medal (Formally known as the 'Duke of York Medal') was established by the regiment as a trophy for "recognition for officers and soldiers who make an outstanding contribution to military effectiveness and reputation of the Regiment". As an unofficial medal, it's worn on the right breast as seen in all of the photos of it being worn and isn't permitted for wear on the uniform outside of regimental functions. For this reason, you received no opposition for moving from the list of official medals. The fact that four of his other medals were awarded for service during the war is besides that point entirely. A standard layout for military bio's exist on Wikipedia, and where a list of medals are present in the article, all medals are there and not randomly spread about throughout the article. I made the change to the line "For his military service, Moore was awarded four medals:" and made it "the following are Moore's British medals." which made it simple to understand for the reader. The original position existed for a month, you moved it and I challenged the move and fixed the line that caused concern. So far you haven't been able to back your reasoning without trying to change the conversation. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 12:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nford24 entirely here. For military articles we tend to have their medal entitlement kept to one place. The Yorkshire medal is an annual award and isn't part of his entitlement so it sits correctly in the recognition section of the article. Woody (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call him?

Sir Tom or Sir Thomas? 77.69.34.203 (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Captain_Tom_Moore&oldid=968036034"