User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2009/October

Chichester Cathedral

Like with the title, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, it has capital letters at the beginning of the important words in it. Organist & Master of the Choristers, Assistant Organist and Organ Scholar are all correct ways of writing it.

Willwal ... talk to me 08:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have explained to you before, at some length, that these sort of titles are only capitalised when applied to a specific individual.--Charles (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Charlesdrakew, it probably isn't worth the effort. As you have been told, regardless of the Wiki style manual the caps are traditionally used in a great many publications about cathedrals. There are probably more important reversions and corrections that you can make, that are going to be well appreciated, than continually changing something that really doesn't matter much, except for another editor's sense of propriety. That is the way it is done. Can I ask you to take a pragmatic line on this? Wikipedia is not necessarily the last word, when it comes to protocol, so it hardly seems worth enforcing. Unless of course, the matter is one that is very dear to your heart, as it obviously is to Willwal. If it isn't, then why waste your time pushing a tiny point, just for the sake of a questionable rule? If you want to be thoroughly occupied, then go and check out the computer pages, the soap opera pages and the rock star pages. There are half a million badly-written articles just crying out for the attention of someone who understands the rules and formatting. Amandajm (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Amanda, Wikipedia has grown up and reached a point where it is beginning to be taken seriously by academia and the media. It helps us to be taken seriously if there is a consistent style across all pages and an adult standard of English. The MoS is clear on this; it is the house style. In this age of text message English children need to be set a good example of how to use capitals. I fail to see the relevance of what other publications do since we are not plagiarising them, are we? There is nothing personal in this. If you look at my contributions list you will see that I fix headings on a great range of articles, and nobody else has ever complained. It is often me who corrects the cathedral page because I try to have all Sussex related pages on my watchlist, but if not me then other editors will do the same, e.g. Willwal or one of his sockpuppets has been warned about this by mholland. I would get bored very quickly working on computer , soap operas and rock stars, so I will leave those to others. Best wishes and happy editing.--Charles (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course... I apologise for my rudeness. But I am trying to make the point that the effort of dealing with a very persistent person who is convinced they are right simply isn't worth the effort if the matter is in fact a matter of opinion, in which they have custom and tradition on their side. When I refer to other publications, it has nothing to do with plagiarisation. I find the suggestion odd. It has to do with sources. I just checked out a few of the websites of a number of England's more prestigious cathedrals (not those who rely on volunteers to maintain their websites). I looked at Canterbury, St Paul's and Winchester. They use title case (or caps) for headings (and subheadings), so this really doesn't answer the question of what is customary. However, they also refer to the Choir with a capital "C" within the text of the article, also the Master of Chorister, the Director of Music, the Assistant Organist, the Choir Organ, the Vicar's Chorale, the Boys (meaning the Choristers), etc. This is the way it is usually done, by the official bodies concerned, on their official websiites. When it comes to setting an example to children about the use of capitals, I frankly wouldn't want to argue with a body like the Church of England about their overriding protocol in this matter. However, perhaps you are right, and wikipedia knows best.

Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A favor

Hello, Charlesdrakew. Long time no see. I'm writing this in the hope that you would do me a favor for me since you helped me by proofreading several articles about Korean history such as Gungnyeo. Gyeongju, one of popular tourist cities in South Korea and the capital of an ancient kingdom is one of a few FA of Korean Project, but has faced in danger of delisting, so I've been working on expanding the article for about 2 months. So the closing time is near close (I hope not though), but as reviewers have pointed out the prose of the article is not good in the current status, and my grammatical errors are not fixed since I'm the only one working on the article. Especially newly added information and sections like Gyeongju#Cultural properties, Gyeongju#Economy and Gyeongju#Healthcare and utilities need to be fixed. I've been struggling to find copy-editors although two people copy-edited a portion. So could you consider my asking for the favor? Thanks.--Caspian blue 22:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Charlesdrakew, thank you very much for the copy-editing. I'm still working on expansion since the article was promoted 4 years ago, and the FA standard are gone much higher. You may notice that the cultural properties section only states half of how many relics Gyeongju has. If you think that some sections (especially newly added information by me since this version) are too much detailed as compared to other sections, please give me your input. Since reviewers have known I've been expanding the article, so they're thankfully holding their review. However, they can shut down the discussion any time since the FARC has been opened for 2 months and some of FARCs were closed and demoted even though editors were working on the former FA articles, so yesterday I felt urged to fix grammatical problems and prose of the article immediately. Therefore my above comment sounded desperate and requested help to several editors at once. Thankfully, you and another editors have helped me which is very generous, and reassures me that Wikipedia is a collaborative project from good faith. Thanks again.--Caspian blue 01:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Natsir Cabinet

Sorry about that - I looked at the wrong bit of the page and miscorrected your corrections to a misformatting I made in the first place. Davidelit (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--Charles (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry

Hey, thanks for the notice.

I'm new to Wikipedia, so if you could direct me somewhere to learn how to edit, that would be great.

But, that edit was definitely not intentional, I think maybe my firewall messed up or something.Dr. Clutch (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

Hey, you helped me a lot with that, thanks! Also, I got started quick my looking at the format of your page. Thanks for the help!

Dr. Clutch has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. 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. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Egremont, Cumbria, Chacufc and you

Hello! It has come to my attention that you and Chacufc have been engaged in an editing war regarding the article on Egremont, Cumbria. Please consider this to be your only warning to stop this behavior. I have already warned Chacufc that both of you run the risk of being blocked if this editing war continues. I am recommending that you and Chacufc settle this manner at the WP:WQA section of Wikipedia -- this will determine a proper solution to your problem. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am astonished to be accused of edit warring for removing obvious linkspam. Perhaps you were too busy to check out the facts before reacting?--Charles (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cut the sarcasm, Charles. I have already given you instructions on what I believe is the best way to proceed. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not being sarcastic. I was genuinely surprised by your treatment of me. As I understand it persistent spamming is treated as vandalism, and reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Both PhilKnight and I have been subjected to personal attacks by Chacufc, groundlessly accused of political bias. I have put a lot of constructive work in over the last two years and created many new articles, so I think I deserve better.--Charles (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any "vandalism", just a disagreement on adding a newspaper's web site as an external link. The obvious solution would be to create a new section in the article on local media in Egremont that would include the newspaper cited by Chacufc along with any other Egremont press outlets. The newspaper clearly exists and it seems strange to deny it - just mention it in passing but don't include the direct link to its web site. If that is not a feasible compromise, then go to WP:WQA and bring your complaint about Chacufc there. I would rather see a solution between you and Chacufc and not this bickering over a trivial link. Thanks. Pastor Theo (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Pastor Theo, I share Charle's concens over your involvement. Also, regarding dispute resolution, I think obtaining a third opinion would be more constructive. PhilKnight (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Knight, my concern is that your indef block against Chacufc was inappropriate, and that is what brought me into this situation. I agree that the two editors need to resolve this situation with all due speed. Pastor Theo (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pastor Theo, you unblocked an editor who made personal attacks in his unblock request, and have allowed him to go back to the article and reinsert the external link. I think you're involvement has been unhelpful, and suggest you reconsider whether you should be handling unblock requests. PhilKnight (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Having been asked to look at this by Charles I concur with Charles completely, I also feel that Paster Theo's contribution has been very unhelpful as said by PhilKnight. A political free newspaper is not a suitable external link. It would be a travesty if anyone even considered Charles as a suitable candidate for a block of even 5 minutesPaste _{Let’s have a chat.} 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As stated earlier, I believe the two editors need to have outside mediation on this matter via WP:WQA. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Postscipt; User:Pastor Theo has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet.--Charles (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Capital Letters

Your recent edits concerning the capital letters in the titles of Organist and Master of the Choristers, Assistant Organist, Organ Scholar have been reverted. There have been discussions about this on your talk page (Charlesdrakew's talk page) and on the Chichester Cathedral talk page (Chichester Cathedral's talk page) - the outcome being that it should be written WITH capitals. Willwal, talk 08:45 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste of a message that I have previously posted on this page

and which you seem to have ignored.

When I refer to other publications, it has nothing to do with plagiarisation. I find the suggestion odd. It has to do with sources. I just checked out a few of the websites of a number of England's more prestigious cathedrals (not those who rely on volunteers to maintain their websites). I looked at Canterbury, St Paul's and Winchester. They use title case (or caps) for headings (and subheadings), so this really doesn't answer the question of what is customary. However, they also refer to the Choir with a capital "C" within the text of the article, also the Master of Chorister, the Director of Music, the Assistant Organist, the Choir Organ, the Vicar's Chorale, the Boys (meaning the Choristers), etc. This is the way it is usually done, by the official bodies concerned, on their official websites. When it comes to setting an example to children about the use of capitals, I frankly wouldn't want to argue with a body like the Church of England about their overriding protocol in this matter. However, perhaps you are right, and wikipedia knows best.

Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC) re-pasted Amandajm (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, which has its house style. I fail to see what relevance the protocols of the Church of England have to it.--Charles (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just reread the Wiki MOS on this matter.

It is my opinion that you are simply misunderstanding the implications of the Wikipedia MOS guidelines.

This is what they say:

Titles of people

When used generically, words such as president, king, and emperor are in lower case: De Gaulle was a French president and Louis XVI was a French king. Similarly: Three prime ministers attended the conference.

When used as parts of a title such words begin with a capital letter: President Obama, not president Obama. Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper nouns: The British Prime Minister is Gordon Brown, Hirohito was Emperor of Japan, and Louis XVI was King of France. Royal styles are capitalized: Her Majesty and His Highness; exceptions may apply for particular offices.

In the case in question, (within the article) the position referred to is not "generic".

Here are some generic examples:

• "The cathedral held a competition which drew church organists from all over Britain to play the famous organs.
• "The choir masters of the cathedral have included some distinguished composers.
• "The abbot also filled the role of bishop.
• "Jim Brewer was a choral scholar at Tatchester Cathedral.
• "The dean is a cleric in charge of a cathedral. He is assisted by a precentor, a chancellor and a sacristan.

Here are some non-generic examples:

• "There is a recital each Tuesday on the Great Organ by the Assistant Organist, Jan Stewer.
• "The present Master of Choristers is Peter Gurney.
• "The last Abbot of Tatchester was Peter Davey. The first secular Bishop of Tatchester was Daniel Whiddon.
• "The education of Choral Scholars is provided at St Dunnican's School.
• "The Dean published his sermon, "Stewardship and Global Crisis". Five choral services a week are led by the Precentor. The Chancellor reads the intercessions. The Sacristan, the Reverend Harry Hawke, is retiring in November.

In each on of these cases the terms are being used as a title, specific to a particular role, ie the Choir of Tatchester Cathedral, the Bishop of Tatchester, the Assistant Organist of Tatchester Cathedral etc. In no case does the term apply in a wider sense. This is the case, even when the words "of Tatchester Cathedral" are omitted. Those words are implied.

A similar case may be found in the use of royal titles, where, instead of repeating "His Royal Highness, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh", it is usual, (and Wiki MOS permits) to use the term "The Duke" or "The Prince" in subsequent reference to the person.

This ought likewise be applied in all other circumstances where a specific individual is referred to. eg. Pope John Paul III visited Tatchester. The Pope and the Bishop prayed in the Chapel of St Dunnican.

Likewise Prime Minister Tom Cobbley attended Evensong at Tatchester Cathedral. The Prime Minister congratulated the Dean on his sermon about world-wide poverty. It would be incorrect to write The prime minister congratulated the dean... when writing about a specific prime minister acting in his role. In this case the terms "Prime Minister" and "Dean" are simply a shorter way of writing "The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Right Honourable Tom Cobbley" and "The Dean of Tatchester, the Right Reverend Doctor James Brewer."

This is how I understand the Wikipedia MOS. It appears to concur with the practice of most reputable bodies, and also with my education in writing English.

Here's a quote from a Wikipedia article, Order of the British Empire:

The Order has six officials: the Prelate, the Dean, the Secretary, the Registrar, the King of Arms, and the Usher. The Bishop of London, a senior bishop in the Church of England, serves as the Order's Prelate. The Dean of St Paul's is ex officio the Dean of the Order. The Order's King of Arms is not a member of the College of Arms, as are many other heraldic officers. The Usher of the Order is known as the Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod; he does not – unlike his Order of the Garter equivalent, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod – perform any duties related to the House of Lords.

If we are to follow the formula upon which you are so insistent, then the first sentence must read:

The order has six officials: the prelate, the dean, the secretary, the registrar, the king of arms, and the usher.

The action of removing the capitals (in this case) means that roles are no longer formal ones. The registrar, the secretary and the usher are simply job-descriptions, like the registrar at the local hospital, the secretary of a small business and the usher at a picture theatre.

Please stop trying to force your simplistic and pedantic interpretation of the manual on other editors who are familiar with the practices and protocol about which they are writing, and perceive the Wikipedia Style Manual as supporting, rather than contradicting their practices.

Amandajm (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That is a lot for somebody as stupid as me to read. If you can show me where in the MoS you found this; "The education of Choral Scholars is provided at St Dunnican's School." I might change my mind. The Mos is quite clear that job titles/descriptions are ordinary nouns unless applied to a specific individual, named or implied. Section headings for lists of people are using the title generically, as in "list of past prime ministers". I doubt that you would write "The Refuse Operative wheeled the bin to the lorry", so I suppose it is a matter of snobbery rather than consistent English.--Charles (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Charlesdrekew, I neither said nor implied stupidity on your part, simply a misinterpretation.

As a retired teacher, I have plenty of patience and don't mind explaining things at length.

• Re If you can show me where in the MoS you found this; "The education of Choral Scholars is provided at St Dunnican's School." I might change my mind.

No, this would not cause you to change of mind. You would merely delete the capitals. To say otherwise is nonsense.

• Re your statement unless applied to a specific individual, named or implied.

This is where you are mistaken.

The examples given in the Wikipedia MOS include: Louis XVI was a French king. and Louis XVI was King of France. In both of these cases a specific individual is named (Louis XVI). The difference is not in particular person, but in the naming of a specific role or title. "A French king" is not the name of a specific role. "King of France" is. This is the difference.

So one would write: The emblem of the King of France is the Fleur de Lys. In this case, no particular person is referred to. But both the kingly role and the symbolic emblem are capitalised.

The capitals apply in the same way to specific objects, generally those which have symbolic significance or a traditional function. So the Wool Sack is not just any wool sack, the Black Rod is not just any black rod, and the Spurs (when referred to with a capital letter) imply something other than what one might wear on her riding-boots to review the Trooping of the Colour.

The statement The Assistant Organist performs on the Great Organ at most services is correct, because it refers to a particular role, even though the actual person filling the role might change every few years.

The same applies to military ranks. eg.

"The highest ranking officer to be killed in the action was a major." and "The highest ranking officer to be killed in the action was the Major." The implication of these two sentences is quite different.

As for the gentleman in the Cleansing Department, there are circumstances under which "Refuse Operative" would also be capitalised. In an advertisment listing positions vacant at the council chambers, for example. The difference in general is not so much a matter of hierarchy (or snobbery) but simply that the position is generally prefixed by the indefinite, rather than the definite, article.

A Google search supports this. The first two that popped up were:

1. Energy & Utility Skills - Careers - Waste Management Job Profiles ...The job of a Refuse Operative (also known as a Kerbside Collector) is centred on the collection of waste from homes and businesses, emptying it onto a ...

2.Energy & Utility Skills - Careers - A Day in the Life Of - Case ...25 year old Becca Silver from Cardiff has been working as the only female refuse operative at Cardiff City Council for the last 16 months. ...

I am going to point out to you again that Wilwall and I are not ignoring the style manual. You may believe that you understand how it is to be interpreted, but neither of us agree with you, and neither of us is acting in ignorance. You would probably do well to put this all down to a "difference of opinion" and concede that someone else's opinion just might be valid, particularly since they so obviously have Church, Government and Military on their side.

To put it at the base line, correcting your frequent changes is causing frustration and bad feeling.

Amandajm (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The only titles I have changed recently are those in the section headings for lists of past office holders. As these are clearly not being applied to an individual they are being used generically and so do not need capitals.--Charles (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the explanation that about Louis the French king, Louis the King of France. It is not a matter of whether an "individual person" is referred to. It is a matter of whether the title of a "specific role" is referred to. The roles in this case are "Choir Master (of Chichester Cathedral)", "Assistant Organist (of Chichester Cathedral)" etc. The terms are not being used generically. They are being applied to a particular, specified post in each case. As such they are no different to "Bishop of Chichester" or "Dean of Chichester". The lists are lists of persons who have each assumed the role and title of the section heading.

Amandajm (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be at odds with your own posting above e.g.

• 1. The choir masters of the cathedral have included some distinguished composers.
  2. "The abbot also filled the role of bishop.

I see what you are saying but still think the list headings are generic. According to the MoS De Gualle was a French president and Louis XVI was a French king, so Andy Stop-Puller would have been a Barchester Cathedral assistant organist. We will just have to disagree on this--Charles (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If the sentence read: "The position of Choir Master has often been occupied by a distinguished composer", then it would require caps.

In a sentence such as "In monastic cathedrals the abbott also filled the role of bishop" lower case is correct. However, caps would be needed if the sentence read "Richard was both Abbot and Bishop of Chichester."

If Andy's correct title is Assistant Organist, then it gets caps. It is splitting hairs here, but if one wrote "Barchester Cathedral assistant organist", then "Barchester Cathedral" becomes has a garbled type of semi-adjective, frequently used in journalise and on Wikipedia, but not grammatically correct and which ought to be avoided. "Barchester Cathedral" is not the equivalent of "French". The sentence should read Andy Stop-Puller was Barchester Cathedral's Assistant Organist. or Andy Stop-Puller was Assistant Organist of Barchester. In each case Andy's role needs caps. However, as you have, we use the indefinite, rather than the definite article, then we could say that Andy was an assistant organist at Barchester. We are then left wondering if Barchester has several assistant organists at a time.

By the way, how did we get from Tatchester to Barchester? They're miles apart!

Amandajm (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My attention has been caught by someone changing butcher's shop to butcher shop and newsagent's to newsagent (shop) across the country, so I am sorting that out. There are all too many newsagents (shops) around.--Charles (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that one! One of the things I want to see changed is "cathedrals in England" etc etc to "cathedrals of England" (and so on) because that is how they are referred to in English. We talk about "the cathedrals of France", "the stately homes of England" etc. I can't imagine why "in" has prevailed on Wikipedia.

I think that will be difficult. Rivers of England was changed to rivers in England some time ago, and this seems to be the trend. As this is a worldwide project encompassing different styles of English I suppose there are bound to be compromises. And yes, newsagent is tough going, through British ignorance.--Charles (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:5th DAN 2.jpg

Looks like someone decided to nominate your image Commons:File:5th DAN 2.jpg for deletion & failed to inform you, so I'm letting you know. You might want to weigh in at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:5th DAN 2.jpg. No doubt the case for keeping it would be strengthened if you added a description to the image. - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

keep up the good work, long live the possesive apostrophe

Here's my comment on the Apostrophe discussion page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apostrophe under the title: Spelling spoken language - removing the word "shop" but keeping the possessive apostrophe

Hope you agree, I've had enough of adding back the 's, too much ignorance, they can't even be bothered to investigate further. So I'm "retiring". Keep up the good work.World of departure (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I am sorry to hear you are retiring. It is always easier to see off ignorant POV pushers with some backup from other editors. This certainly needs to be incorporated into the apostrophe article, in the "Incorrect English use" section.--Charles (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Did you ever consider becoming an administrator? Are you interested in this at all, because I would be the first to nominate you. Mr. Wayne (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. If there was a backlog of work that only admins can do I would be happy to help, but I think my time is better spent on researching and writing new stuff. I am currently uploading and categorising a lot of photos of our local area to commons where I have an account with the same username. A couple of days ago I requested at AIAV that a persistent vandal be blocked, and it had been done by the time my watchlist had reloaded on the rather slow broadband we have here.--Charles (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh well... The Arbiter^Ѫ_★^Ѫ 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)