Jump to content

Talk:Ben Key

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


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Key. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Separating out the honorific title and only the honorific title

[edit]

I note that a discussion is taking place in edit summaries over separating out the honorific title and only the honorific title. I am aware of the template documentation: Template:Infobox person which says "honorific_prefix: This is for things like |honorific_prefix=Sir – honorifics of serious significance that are attached to the name in formal address, such as knighthoods". For what it's worth I don't see the point in separating out the word "Sir", especially as it would require changes to thousands of military articles. We need consensus on the issue first before changing articles piecemeal. Comments welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dormskirk. As I've noted in edit summaries, I don't see the point in separating the one word title. There is, objectively, no practical or aesthetic value in doing so and, as you say, it would require changes to thousands of articles. Consistency and practicality would, in my view, point to retaining titles in the name parameter of the infobox. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with the both of you. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Special treatment for "Sir/Dame" comes up pretty frequently in MoS discussions (mostly at WT:MOSBIO) and in Template talk:Infobox person discussions, and consensus is never reached to do it the way you want to do it. If you want to change how the template is parameterized or what the parameters are for, then feel free to open yet another discussion at Template talk:Infobox person, and advertise it at WT:MOSBIO and WT:BIO and WT:BLP where the biography-focused editors, not template editors, are. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a rationale to misuse template parameters contrary to their documentation just because you think you know better than everyone else (and "no practical or aethetic value" is pretty obviously a claim that many editors would challenge – "I don't see the point" doesn't mean there is no point) or because you think you have a special level of control over a particular article (you don't, really).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't agree with your implication, however, I did do some looking as you suggested and the biggest conversation on the issue [1] was from 15 years ago, and it just abruptly ended without a decision either way. Are you able to link the original conversation where it was decided to very specifically keep 'sir/dame' in a separate section? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I am not aware of any previous discussion where it was decided to very specifically keep 'sir/dame' in a separate section. Here is the edit summary where 'sir' was moved to a separate line in this article. However, as I have pointed out above, for the vast majority of UK military articles 'sir/dame' is not in a separate section. Judging by the number of articles that show it on the same line as the name, I think this is a case of WP:EDITCONSENSUS, i.e. there was "implied consensus" to keep 'sir/dame' on the same line as the name. Dormskirk (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is now a steamrolling effort taking place to change over all the uk military articles. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...sadly that seems to be the case...and without consensus. Dormskirk (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Omnipaedista, I am not sure if you have seen this discussion but your contribution might help. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for including me. I would like to note that Template:Infobox person clearly says "honorific_prefix: This is for things like |honorific_prefix=Sir – honorifics of serious significance that are attached to the name in formal address, such as knighthood." My main argument is that local consensus cannot override community consensus as reflected in a template's documentation. Changes to thousands of military articles are required indeed but that is not a problem; we will eventually get there. The documentation of this template has been this way since at least November 2017‎. For the past 6 years, no one seems to have changed this bit of the documentation. This is the deafening silence of consensus (WP:SILENCE). --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough...I certainly see your point. But the opposite argument is that there are so many UK military articles to change (as you have demonstrated by all the changes you are making) that there must have been EDITCONSENSUS to leave it the way it was i.e. with "Sir/Dame" on the same line for UK military articles. Dormskirk (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, EDITCONSENSUS refers to being bold and "being bold" is about "re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information", not about trivially implementing the documentation of an infobox. In any case, invoking local consensus against community consensus is just not in accordance with common Wikipedia practice (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "the deafening silence of consensus" is actually the fact that you're having to change "thousands of military articles"? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more time. The documentation was written 6 years ago, no one has ever changed it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm making a point. Please don't respond as if I can't read. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a separate point, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says "template documentation pages, and essays have not gone through the policy and guideline proposal process and may or may not represent a broad community consensus"...so I don't think we should treat template documentation pages as fixed in stone of there is EDITCONSENSUS to leave things as they are. Dormskirk (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been more than a month and Omnipaedista is still trying to impose his will on this and other pages. In the case of this page he has been overriding talk page consensus repeatedly. Editors may consider whether escalation at an admin level is necessary. Atchom (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is getting clear that this is about a specific Wikiproject defying the wikiwide guideline's intent and documentation. This is a borderline conduct issue. If a guideline has been defied without any compelling rationale by a small group of editors (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS), I would like to think that ArbCom should issue remedies to fix that. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a conduct issue. The conduct at issue is yours. Atchom (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly the word "Sir" goes is a pretty minor issue in the grand scheme of things, so it's not terribly surprising that no one has thought to change the documentation until now. That does not mean, however, that it should be treated as if it were written in stone. Zacwill (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. You can't simply sneak in a change through documentation, against all previous practice and common usage, then claim everything has to be changed to fit the documentation line no one else saw. Atchom (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. It looks ridiculous. We bold the title in the first line, so why not in the infobox? The honorific_prefix field should be used for honorifics such as The (Right) Honourable and for ranks, not for titles. The documentation needs to be changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Template:Infobox saint/testcases. On Wikipedia, we bold the title/prefix "Saint" in the first line, but not in the infobox. It is counterintuitive, but well-established as an infobox-related practice on Wikipedia. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's at all "well-established". It's merely liked by a few editors. It's illogical, inconsistent, looks weird and makes no sense. In any case, we're not talking about saints here. That's an honorific that is only applied in a religious context and is not always used (e.g. Thomas More is usually referred to as Sir Thomas More and not St Thomas More, except in a Catholic religious sense). "Sir" and "Dame" are titles that are always applied. Once John Smith is knighted he is always Sir John Smith in the future unless he chooses not to use it (which is rare) and reputable media outlets commonly use it to refer to him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, there is an active discussion on the talk page of the relevant wikiwide documentation. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Atchom (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that two editors agree with each other to go against the current consensus on a random talk page bears no significance. There have been several wikiwide discussions about this matter over the past two years without ever consensus going in the direction of giving Sir/Dame unique treatment. You could try to change consensus through the proper procedures instead of simply ignoring the current template documentation. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Key&oldid=1203260461"