User talk:Martin of Sheffield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Crystal Clear app clock.svg It is approximately 4:47 PM where this user lives. (England)

TUSC token 0d2143de092c67c18c2277c4667fe01e[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Hartley Colliery Disaster and GA?[edit]

How would you feel about Hartley Colliery Disaster being put forward for GA review? It's certainly of that standard. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've no problems, after all I don't WP:OWN it! I've just had a quick run through the grammar and Wikidata points raised by X!'s tools. I updated the Wikidata, but it doesn't yet seem to notice. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The Interior@enwiki using the list at -->

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Excellent work on Rochester Cathedral article Mabelina (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much - my first ever barnstar! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Rochester Cathedral[edit]

Hi Martin: ref Wendene, no point in mentioning him at all if no connection with Rochester. However, Palmer isn't the only authority I'll have to dig out something more (albeit a bit tangental). More importantly, surely the memorial tablet doesn't say Columbo!? I can't recall from memory - do you have something more definitive? Best M Mabelina (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Richard Wendene was the B of Rochester. The other Richard was (possibly later) the B of Bangor. Both men are recorded as being at the re dedication. I have picked up that the ceremony was delayed to 1240 when Richard of Bangor had been installed. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes agreed - & he had a prob with being installed at Rochester so was appointed to Bangor first - so same bloke (will find ref somehow but not available on internet unfort)...
PS. needs going back to mediaeval manuscripts to properly decipher...
PPS. inserted ref (maybe earlier phraseology might have been better?)
PPPS. altho on second thoughts it gets so confusing let's leave as is (until I can provide original data)

I'm still concerned that you are mixing up two different men. Richard was a pretty common name at the time. Have a look at and The dates (even dates of death) do not line up at all. BTW, Palmer is basically St. John Hope with a slight re-working. The difference is that Palmer is available online whilst St. John Hope is not available online outside of the USA. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"Columbo". This is a very early hand written note in the particular copy of the Bishops' Bible of 1568. I have to trust Dr W H MacKean DD, canon and cathedral librarian: (1) the bible concerned is packed away whilst the roof of the library is replaced and the shelving re-ordered, and (2) I would need to approach chapter for special permission to handle a volume of that date. I may be able to do so and possibly obtain photographic evidence in a year or two's time. Until then you'll have to trust MacKean. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Martin - Me thinks we are spending much time on Rochester whilst battling against the MoS gang whose purpose I wholeheartedly applaud, support etc but whose application can sometimes be a little random not to mention bombastic - particularly given that they generally cite nothing better than MoS as an excuse to "remedy" whichever piece! Like you I can call upon privileged sources (for back-up) but should it become necessary my immediate port of call would be the Guildhall Library (open to public & an excellent resource run by the Corporation of London for those that didn't know). Anyway I don't think Columbo is right - I've seen it so often on memorial tablets, gravestones and of course manuscripts where parts of letters are indistinct and open to interpretation. Clearly my comparison with Peter Falk didn't amuse but I can't really imagine how could it be anything other than either Columbus or Colombo. Whilst I may be totally wrong it seems CofE-related Wiki topics are being governed by MoS more than anything nowadays! Best M Mabelina (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
How can we get so side-tracked by others who don't appear in my view at least to know much about the subject (unlike you)..
PS. what baffles me is why others can't correct blatant inaccuracies or add useful info rather than going round in circles about their pet topics... - anyway onwards..!


Hi Martin, I thought you may be interested in seing this Candle Talk page section, having reverted one of the originating editors contributions to the article:- Talk:Candle#A_candle_is_still_a_candle_even_if_the_wick_is_not_ignited. Richard Harvey (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Dissolution of Parliament[edit]

Thank you for your message. How I understood it, and I am happy to be corrected, was that although Parliament was dissolved on 30 March those most recently in that position remain so until after the election in case of a recall. If something were to have happened in April for instance that necessitated the recall of Parliament, those individuals would have returned. I was also going by every other Parliament, where - for instance - everyone who stood down/lost at the 2010 election had the date set as 6 May 2010, or for the 2005 election as 5 May 2005, etc. Vaze50 (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No, once parliament is dissolved there are no MPs to recall to a non-existent Commons. The Lords remain and ministers retain their appointments which are made by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister. In an emergency ministers could still act using Royal Prerogative, though in practice they would almost certainly consult with the ex-Leader of the Opposition. Remember that ministers do not have to be MPs, they can be drawn from the Lords, indeed in times past have even been non-parliamentary appointments but this would not be acceptable today. All political power in the UK comes from the Crown, and therefore if one organ of government is missing there is no reason for a collapse in administration. Of course an incoming House of Commons might well want to discuss and review what the ministers had been up to. :-) I image it would be constitutionally possible for fresh warrants to be issued for the convening of Parliament based on a previous election, but this would be a new parliament not a recall. Something similar happened during WWII when the election was suspended.
As regards Wiki entries for previous general election times, it sounds as if they are wrong and need adjusting. It is slightly more complex since by convention only a returned MP is often given overall dates and the technicality of a 6 week break is overlooked. Consider, for instance, Blair whose dates as an MP are commonly given as 9 June 1983 – 27 June 2007, that is from first election to the date he was appointed to the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Shaker broom vise DYK[edit]

On Saturday (6_20_2015) I am going to nominate the article for DYK. I am going to include you and 7&6=thirteen as co-editors as you BOTH made major contributions to the article. I have in my sandbox possible hook lines. Which do you prefer OR do you have another suggestion?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Of the three I'd suggest number 2. 3 is possibly ambiguous to a non-anglophone: was the broom (which is now round) originally made flat (and then rounded)? REgards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I prefer that one also, now that I am thinking it over. Thanks for explanation.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Shaker broom vise has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

DYK for Shaker broom vise[edit]

Do try and pass this thank you on. Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

long division[edit]

Dear Martin, please check the correctness of your recent long division example upload. The long division is done nicely, but (if I am not mistaken, and I am not an expert) the original question requires a different answer: 17.5% of 1637 should be 286.475. (1637/100*17.5). Or am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:C203:107E:98D7:1C7C:79BC:B13C (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I was concentrating on the method, and divided by 17.5 instead of multiplying by 17.5/100. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll try and generate another example this evening. What would by arithmetic teacher have said? He'd have probably set me extra work - just like you! :-)
On another point, have you considered registering for an account? Wiki loves careful and thoughtful contributors like yourself. Kind regards and thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.[edit]

Hello Martin of Sheffield,

From the other side of the world, (where it's now past midnight), thank you so much for helping me try to sort out this "The Armidale School" problem.

Gderrin (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying about change ringing; although I have never participated, I think I now understand what you mean. J S Ayer (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Gaufre biscuit.jpg Hi i heard you love shoving these in certain places ;) XboxGamingzz (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
  • Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
  • Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II[edit]

Martin of Sheffield- You recently commented in an RfC at Talk:Elizabeth II. Unfortunately, the wording of the RfC when first posted did not properly outline the actual issues in dispute. The opening statement of the RfC has since been revised. If that change leads you do a different conclusion, please alter your remarks at the RfC. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II[edit]

I've been through many Rfc over the years. This one is quite civil, actually :) GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Martin of Sheffield. You have new messages at M2545's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Hello Martin. It seems like you know your way around templates. If so, would you might checking the code in the new article Timeline of Bruges? Is it parsable? Should the references go outside of the curly brackets for each event? OK to group multiple events in a single year (e.g. 1297)? Where to put images? Advice would be much appreciated. Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't need me to check up on what you've done - you're doing fine as it is. However since you invited criticism I'll mention a few points which are meant to be helpful suggestions, not condemnations.
  • I haven't played with it, but my gut instinct is to keep timelines within subheadings, not put subheadings within timelines. Have a play and select whichever you prefer.
  • Please try to put the defining citations for a reference with the first use it the reference. I spent some time looking for where nyt1997 was cited. As a matter of personal preference I move all citations to the bibliography and use {{sfn}}, but this is a matter of personal style.
  • You certainly should put the references inside the curly braces, as you have done.
  • I've just had a play with 1297, what you are doing is the only sensible way. Although I don't like <br>, it seems to be the only sensible way at this point. Using two entries results in two headings which certainly looks worse.
  • I'd use caution in adding images to timelines and lists. My personal opinion is that they are better on the substantive pages, not on reference pages unless they either 1) refer to an event which will never have a page, or 2) help to clarify the timeline.
  • There are quite a lot of redlinks. Are you expecting to write the appropriate pages soon? If not it might be better to simply mention the event as plain text.
  • Don't do yourself down with unnecessary {{Expand section}} templates. I've removed them, the {{Dynamic list}} template is appropriate and sufficient.

Please read the following as suggestions to an obviously competent editor, not as complaints. Keep up the good work! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the helpful comments and suggestions. Here is a follow-up question about redlinks (which I also dislike). The problem is that the very useful Template:Interlanguage link points readers to a foreign language Wikipedia article, but also creates a redlink for an English-language version. Do you happen to know if there is a way to transparently and concisely point to the foreign language article without also creating a redlink (besides the option below)? Thanks again. -- M2545 (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
First and foremost, have a read of Help:Interlanguage_links#Inline_links. Taking your example above, the question is: Is Victor Van Hoestenberghe notable in the English Wiki? If he is notable, then continue as before creating redlinks which someone (perhaps you) will eventually write a page about. If he is unlikely to be notable, then either use your second example above or one of:
[[:nl:Victor Van Hoestenberghe]] --> nl:Victor Van Hoestenberghe
[[:nl:Victor Van Hoestenberghe|]] --> Victor Van Hoestenberghe
That may not be a whole lot of help, but it's the best I've come up with after reading the template documentation, MOS and Help. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks!! -- M2545 (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)