User talk: RGloucester

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

Wikipedia talk:Page mover[edit]

[1] It does close the loophole, redirects can just be moved out of the way. Peter James (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


R, can you take a look at Talk:Tigrayans#Requested_move_2_March_2016 since you supported the previous move that this is reacting against? I was looking to close it but didn't see a clear consensus, and didn't see why you have not said whether you still thought the previous move was good. Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason I haven't commented is because that discussion is rather a bit more complex than the last one, and I don't want to make any errors in an area outside my expertise. RGloucester 13:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree it's complicated, and very few editors feel like they can say anything cogent. Dicklyon (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shina (word), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sino-Japanese War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC[edit]

In case you're interested in voicing an opinion, there's an RfC being held here. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Do not game the system.....[edit] you did here. --QEDK (T C) 16:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Gaming the system? That's your exclusive domain, dear fellow, as you've shown in deciding to create a new Wikipedia process without the consensus to do so, in direct contravention of Wikipedia policies. RGloucester 16:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not a process, it's a space for people who want to get away from the politics and seriousness of this damn place. --QEDK (T C) 17:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed a process, a process to encourage discussion that has nothing to do with building the encylopaedia. If you'd like to get away from the so-called "seriousness" of this place, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from going elsewhere. RGloucester 17:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation[edit]

I've explained my recent change to the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation which you reverted. Please consider my point and respond. Thanks Qaz1984 (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian war listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Russo-Ukrainian war. Since you had some involvement with the Russo-Ukrainian war redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG talk 19:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Handling of AfCs at WP:RMTR[edit]

Hello RG. This issue came up before, and I noticed your recent move of the Walshy Fire article. Is this how it's normally done? Isn't there a magic button in the AfC tool to promote these things? Do you want to keep the redirect at Draft:Walshy Fire or can it be deleted? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

That's how it is normally done for page movers, per WP:PM/C#4. In this case, there was a redirect at Walshy Fire that needed to be got rid of before the draft could be put in the article space. The way I did is how page movers do it, as we can't just delete the redirect outright. Regardless, feel free to delete that implausible redirect. I had intended to tag it for housekeeping deletion, but wasn't sure what to do as the procedure for how a page mover should deal with draft redirects hasn't been established. Regardless, thanks for the query. RGloucester 20:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:PM/C#4 doesn't actually mention AfC. I suppose I need to find out where the AfC people live so I can ask. I'll zap the redirect from draft space. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is a specific procedure for AfC and page movers. AfCs are not usually posted at RM/TR, either. This was a specific case, as I understand, because there was a redirect blocking the move when there usually would not've been. RGloucester 20:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I looked in the AfC instructions and they say there is a script to do the move. But the AfC script doesn't work in draft space. Maybe someone will reply to my question over there. If you see that a move from draft space is blocked by an existing article, you should also check if a history merge is needed. In this case there were edits under the redirect but no substantive content edits, so a histmerge wasn't required. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. RGloucester 20:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]


Thanks for the page move!

Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
RGloucester, this is to acknowledge that I think you are a net positive here. I think you have a bit of a short fuse and a few hobby horses (unlike me--I am equanimity personified, as anyone will tell you), and I think you're working hard on thinking twice before you respond to something that irks you, and I think that's admirable. You are one of many editors here that I respect not just for their contributions but also for their individuality and their temperament, and for their willingness to let the collaborative spirit of this beautiful project keep individuality and temperament in check. It is not always an easy thing to do, and I appreciate it very much. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Drmies. The sentiment is very much appreciated. I hope your term on the committee won't be too maddening, as I imagine such things often are. RGloucester 01:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please help me[edit]

Hi. I am the same person who registered as Qaz1984. I updated my computer with Windows 10 and found that I had to log in again to edit on Wikipedia and found that I couldn't remember my password. I therefore registered a new account but called in 1984Qaz so that people would know I am the same person. I also explained this on my new account. So why are you giving me a warning? I don't use the old account any more - as I can't - and I've been open about why I opened this new account. Please tell me what to do to fix things. Thanks 1984Qaz (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Meanings of "government"[edit]

Hey! Previously involved in a debate on the various meanings of "government," you might be interested in this move request. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversial move[edit]

When you suggest a move at RM and it gets closed as no consensus, it is very poor form to make that move anyway, even if it is more than a year later. I have undone your move of Flemish people, you can start a new move discussion but please don't make controversial page moves in this way. Fram (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I apologise. I figured it was uncontroversial, as the guidelines have changed to support said change in a way that was not the case before. Indeed, Wikipedia has now been largely standardised on said form following a set of RFCs and RMs. This was not the case when I proposed the move last time. Regardless, I have no interest in an RM, as editors are unlikely to care what the guidelines say, as is so often the case. RGloucester 21:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
No problem. As for the guidelines, you gave Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) as one of the reasons, but that one says in "exceptions": "Articles on people groups. Canadians, French people and Koreans in Japan are all acceptable titles. " so at least that guideline is not a good reason to make this move. The other guideline also isn't really clear and ends with "Undiscussed, unilateral moves of widely edited articles are discouraged." Fram (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the part that says 'If a plural title without the word "people" is available, it is almost invariably chosen; e.g., Bangladeshis is consistently preferred to Bangladeshi people'. I guess that such a revert as yours is the reason for the 'almost'. Sad, quite sad, that the encylopaedia will look so inconsistent and poorly. RGloucester 23:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


Does your page mover status make it easy for you to do uncontroversial moves per MOS:JR without going through the WP:RM uncontroversial page? AA seems annoyed by these. Here's a list of one currently in need of a move:

Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and listed them at WP:RMT. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


@N-HH: Here is a scanned copy, showing the ministries listed clearly. However, as I said before when discussing the various Cameron ministry articles, I will support "May government" as being more common in non-specialist sources today. "Administration" is absolutely wrong, an Americanism, not the common name, and does not belong here at all. Please keep in mind that for WP:CONSISTENCY, you'll have to change all articles in the categories Category:British ministries, Category:Canadian ministries, and Category:Australian ministries. The format 'Government of X' is unnecessarily long, per WP:CONCISE. As long as there is no other article on Wikipedia titled 'May government', then 'May government' should be the title. This applies to all the ministries. In cases where dab might be need, then the longer name 'Theresa May government]]' might be used. RGloucester 14:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that. I agree about consistency of course, although a case can perhaps be made for using one term to describe older governments/ministries and another for more modern ones, if that tallies with what most serious sources do in each case. I'm not sure what the best form of title for those modern ones would be – an argument can probably be made for various permutations, and consistency could be an argument for a slightly longer form for all of them if any one requires it – or whether I have the time to get involved in a comprehensive retitling just yet. N-HH talk/edits 21:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing panel for New York naming debate[edit]

A debate is underway about moving New York to New York (state) and placing either the city, the dab page or a broad-concept article at the "New York" base name. Would you be willing to exercise your wisdom and participate in a closing panel tasked with adjudicating this 15-year-old conundrum? Apply here: Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Closing panel. Note that the move was first approved on June 18 then overturned on July 7 and relisted as a structured debate to gather wider input. You might want to read those prior discussions to get a feel for the arguments. (Be sure to have your cup of tea handy!) — JFG talk 19:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I'm under a self-requested block at the moment. Second of all, I participated in the first RM, and hence am not a neutral party. I suggest that instead of soliciting closers in this way, one should make a formal request at WP:AN so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety. RGloucester 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry to see you gone so soon after the epic Brexit naming debate! — JFG talk 20:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

@Awilley: I'm ready to be unblocked, at your leisure. Much obliged, RGloucester 17:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Happy editing. ~Awilley (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Awilley: Thanks. I once again very much appreciate your assistance in this regard. RGloucester 21:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Republic of China general election, 2016[edit]

Taiwan was the original title of the article. There was discussion about your proposed renaming on the talk page since July 2015 without reaching consensus, so the title should remain as original before consensus.

Mind your disruptive behavior of preventing others to revert you by making meaningless edit on the other page. This is the second time you do this on this page. --Coco977 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The original page name was the name that presently stands, as one can see here. This title is in line with WP:NC-GAL, and follows the conventions for these articles as established in past RMs, and in the relevant category. If you'd like to change the conventions, please start a discussion. Otherwise, please stop move-warring, and making a mess. RGloucester 18:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:NC-GAL says to use the format "Demonym type election/referendum, date". The common Demonym of ROC is Taiwanese.--Coco977 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
There are exceptions, but I'm not discussing this here. If you'd like to discuss a page move, open a requested move for all the relevant articles, and stop making a god-damned mess. RGloucester 18:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
It is you that should open a request move.--Coco977 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The person that wants to change the stable title is the one who makes the requested move, not the person who is maintaining the status quo, which has been discussed numerous times. RGloucester 18:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The stable title was Taiwanese until you moved it and prevent others to revert you.--Coco977 (talk)
No, the stable title was RoC, which a previous editor made a bold move away from, which I reverted in line with WP:BRD. Nothing more. If there is a redirect in the way, that can be remedied at WP:RM/TR. RGloucester 18:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Numbering of British ministries[edit]

Hi, RGloucester. I see you've edited Major ministry and added the cabinet infobox in which it says its ministry is the 88th and 89th cabinet. Then, I'd like to ask you where this data come from. Now I'm writing the list of British ministries in Japanese Wikipedia and it requires verifiability on the cabinet number. If you have some sources, could you tell me the references for it? --Doraemonplus (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That comes from the 2010 edition of Dod's Parliamentary Companion. It isn't a matter of the cabinet, it is a matter of the ministry. The cabinet does not include junior ministers, whereas the ministry does. Note that Britain has both a government (政府) and a cabinet (内閣), the government including all ministers, and the cabinet only including cabinet ministers specifically. The term 'ministry' specifically refers to the government. Regardless, Sir John had two ministries, his first after the resignation of Lady Thatcher, and his second after the 1992 election. A new ministry is formed after each election. RGloucester 15:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your quick response and teaching me about the usage of words "cabinet" and "ministry". I will write articles more carefully about those usage. ja:内閣 (イギリス)の執筆中に少しは学んだつもりでしたが、まだまだ用語の使い分けについて私の認識が甘かったようですね。今回お教えいただいたことに感謝します。あなたは日本語が話せると利用者ページのバベルにあったので、日本語で返信してみました。--Doraemonplus (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
いえいえ。英国のministry/governmentとcabinetの相違は多数の英国人にも不明でしょう。何か質問があれば、遠慮なく連絡して下さい。RGloucester 19:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
まず、1つめの質問です。Dod's Parliamentary Companionには、初代から第96代までの歴代の政府すべてに代を示す番号が振られているのでしょうか?もし同書に番号が掲載されているのならば、English WikipediaでFirst Wilson ministry (第81代) 以前の政府に代を示す番号が記載されていないのには何か理由があるのでしょうか。単にまだ執筆されていないだけなのか、同書に掲載されていないためなのか、どちらでしょうか。同書は日本の公共図書館ではほぼ入手不可能なので、ここでお教えいただけると助かります。より実際的には、ja:イギリスの内閣一覧に載っている代の数字がどこまで正確なのかを知りたいです。
2つめは、ministryの日本語訳について率直に相談させてください。The 5th edition of Kenkyūsha's New Japanese-English Dictionaryには、【政府】の項目にa government; an administration (n. Americanism); 〔内閣〕a cabinet; a ministry (n. Briticism).と書かれていて、確かにministryの一般的な日本語訳は「政府」 で合っているようです。しかし、個々の政府については、May's cabinetまたはMay ministryを例に取れば、日本ではja:メイ内閣とは言いますが、普通「メイ政府」とは呼びません。一方で、「メイ政権」という呼称は一般的です。このことは、ja:安倍内閣あたりを見ていただければお分かりかと思います。そこで、この場合のministryの日本語訳は、「政権」が適当でしょうか。RGloucesterさんならどのように訳すか、簡単でいいのでご意見をお聞かせください。--Doraemonplus (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
一つ目について、明日図書館でお調べします。二つ目について、私は日本語の政治用語の使い方に詳しくないんですが、「政権」の方が良いんじゃないかと思います。RGloucester 06:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
お手数をおかけしますが、どうぞよろしくお願いします。日本語訳については、日本語版の編集者で再検討しますね。貴重なご意見をありがとうございました。--Doraemonplus (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
遅くなりすみません。少し複雑な事だと思います。Dod's Parliamentary Companionにはその番号が現れていないのですが、政権の一覧があるので読者は数える事が出来ます。そうしたら、現在のメイ政権が第96代のようです。英語版ではWP:CALCによるとその仕方がOKだと思いますが、日本語版のルールについて全然存じないのでいけないかもしれません。RGloucester 20:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
なるほど、掲載されている一覧を単純に一つ一つ数えたということですね。現在の日本語版にはWP:CALCの規定はないので、記事に載せても問題ないかは不明です。ひょっとすると、WP:NORに抵触するとも考えられます。ただし、今後、もしも英語版のList of British governmentsに書いてある全ての政府に誰かが番号を付けたならば、日本語版がそれを直輸入することで、ウィキペディアの方針に明白に違反することは避けられるかもしれないです。まあ、この戦術の可否もa grey areaですけれども。とにかく、わざわざ図書館まで調べに行ってくださったことに感謝します。当面はja:イギリスの内閣一覧への記載は見送ることにします。ありがとうございました。--Doraemonplus (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

ご無沙汰しております、Doraemonplusです。先日ja:Template:イギリスの内閣というテンプレートを作成したのですが、Dod's Parliamentary Companionに記載されている96 ministriesと数が一致しません。これを修正したいのですが、あいにく日本ではDod's Parliamentary Companionは入手・閲覧とも不可能なので、ここでRGloucesterさんに伺うことにしました。気の向いた時で構いませんので、Dod's Parliamentary Companion掲載の全番号情報を(List of British governmentsのページなど)何らかの場でご提供くださいますよう、謹んでお願い申し上げます。--Doraemonplus (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Two years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
simplistic style
of Wikipedia
... you were recipient
no. 942 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the reminder of my former preciousness! RGloucester 14:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Precious is forever ;) (When I find a user not so precious anymore, I stop reminding. I remind myself by a little * in the archive. Some lost my appreciation over voting to desysop Yngvadottir when she did the right thing, ignoring bad rules.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the reminder, in any case. RGloucester 14:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


The way to rename categories is via cfd. After consensus, a bot does the work. It will take you forever to rename all the beverages categories as there are hundreds of them. Oculi (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to work for ever to effect a non-controversial and necessary clean-up. RGloucester 13:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not fundamentally against your proposal, but fail to see how these changes would be uncontroversial… --PanchoS (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The main article is at drink. RGloucester 15:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Move of Geography of Taiwan to Taiwan Island[edit]

Please revert your move, which is controversial (like everything to do with that country). There have been articles on the island in the past, but several editors felt that having separate articles in the island and the country would lead to duplication, and is not what is done with other island nations. Kanguole 10:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The article isn't about the 'geography of Taiwan (i.e. the country commonly called Taiwan)', though. It it exclusively about Taiwan Island, not the whole of the territories governed by the RoC. RGloucester 15:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The island makes up 99% of the country, so there's not much difference, and in any case there is a paragraph about the other islands. The article is, however, all about geography, or was before you moved the name section there from Taiwan. But this is a discussion that belongs on the talk page, after the article is moved back. Please do that. Kanguole 15:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It is about the geography of Taiwan Island, not of the RoC, which is commonly known as 'Taiwan'. RGloucester 16:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I have objected to your move. Instead of reverting as requested, you have doubled down by continuing to change the article to match your conception. Kanguole 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
If you'd like to revert it, please do. I stand by the principle of the move. I did not 'change the article', merely removed a piece of information that the existing article itself claimed was irrelevant. RGloucester 17:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Unlike you, I do not have the page mover right. That is why I asked you to reverse your move. Kanguole 17:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I've done so. I will start an RM later today. In any case, please note all of the interwiki links...pretty much every other language has a 'Taiwan Island' article, not a 'geography of Taiwan' article. The present situation doesn't make any sense, and the article itself starts out with 'Taiwan' in bold, referring to the island. This problem will be remedied. RGloucester 17:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

pageswap script for convenience[edit]

Hi RGloucester, I've noticed that you performed some round-robin page moves recently. Thought I'd share a new script here (js) that semi-automates page swaps for convenience, if you ever encounter the scenario. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)

Anyway, just an FYI, feel free to adapt this script as you see fit, cheers :) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 02:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Scare quotes[edit]

@RGloucester: I'm a bit surprised that you don't perceive that placing quotes around "humanitarian convoy," when it is abundantly clear this is Russia's term with or without the quotes, implies editorial doubt and derision regarding the term. If this is a problem please read scare quotes, which explains the usage of quotes to suggest that text is incorrect or absurd. -Darouet (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Also the sources we cite in that paragraph don't directly quote the Russian government using that phrase. -Darouet (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of that usage, but this is a direct quotation from the source, and so should be quoted. Otherwise, it could be perceived as WP:OR. RGloucester 19:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
We can follow up at Talk:War in Donbass. P.S. Do you think it should be renamed to Donbass War? Just curious. -Darouet (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:POVN post for scare quotes at War in Donbass[edit]

Hi @RGloucester: I've made a post at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard about the use of scare quotes at War in Donbass, and I mention you in the post. Please be advised. Thanks, -Darouet (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Volnovakha checkpoint attack listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Volnovakha checkpoint attack. Since you had some involvement with the Volnovakha checkpoint attack redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --BDD (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Police Scotland[edit]

Please provide a justification for the use of the logo. Wikimedia received an email purportedly from someone associated with the organization requesting correction of the logo. I checked with the official site and confirm that the logo provided me was closer to the one on the official site than the old one that you just reverted. Can you provide a reliable source that identifies the colored logo as the official logo?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Both logos are used, and, indeed, so are other variants, but the colour one is the original. One can see this here, which is where the logo was taken from. RGloucester 03:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The color one may be the original but I don't believe it is currently the official one. The source you provided is dated June 2013. In October 2013 they announced their new logo: link.
Based upon the source I think the one provided to me is the current one, so I am replacing it again. Thanks for providing the information you use to support the older version.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I reread the source you provided and I think I have a better understanding of the situation. That document is the material provided for a meeting at which the announcement of the new logo was to be announced. The attachment a includes both logos and in my opinion could have been more clearly written. The multicolored logo called original is the one being replaced. The all blue one which I have now placed in the article is the replacement. I didn't pick up on that the first two times I read it but I think it is now clear what happened.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Police Scotland revised logo.svg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Police Scotland revised logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Päijänne Tavastia[edit]

Hi, do you think this article should be moved to the Finnish name? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want it to be moved, the correct thing to do is file an WP:RM. Cut and paste moves are not allowed, because they separate the edit history of the article from the content. I have no opinion, at yet, on the move itself. RGloucester 17:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, will look into it more first Atlantic306 (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephscullion (talkcontribs) 09:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? RGloucester 17:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Email to you[edit]

Hello, RGloucester. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, RGloucester. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ukpolitics[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Ukpolitics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

Drafting an RFC on narrow-gauge railway titles[edit]

See my draft at User:Dicklyon/rfc#RfC: Hyphen in titles of articles on railways of a narrow gauge. I invite anyone who wants to help make it a neutral question and productive discussion to make tweaks there, or make suggestions, or start your own alternative proposal. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)[edit]

Since you closed the 2014 discussion about the domain of the Syrian Civil War general sanctions, do you have an opinion on whether Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) ‎ falls under the sanctions? There is an editnotice that imposes a 1RR, but I'm not sure of the authority. ISIL is mentioned in the article, which might be sufficient. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

My understanding, based on the various clarification requests for this sanctions regime that have occurred at WP:AN over the years (such as this), is that anything related to ISIL is under these general sanctions. I believe that administrator discretion is used to determine whether to enforce them on a specific article or not. Therefore, I think you'd be well within your authority to apply them to that article. RGloucester 18:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User sub-page[edit]

Please do not edit my user sub-page, per WP:NOBAN. Szqecs (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Four wheeled self-propelled vehicles with a steering thingy[edit]

There are many other topics and areas to work on. Please, breathe, take it slowly, take it easy. —Sladen (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not need your concern. Perhaps consider the gravity of what you have assisted in doing. RGloucester 13:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

RM you might be interested in[edit]

Hi RGloucester,

There's an RM on Talk:Islamization of Iran that I thought you might be interested in.

Genealogizer (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Community sanction[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Community sanction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


Fair enough we can talk about formatting, appearance, and such; but did you notice that I also introduced more accurate information besides, which you've now removed? DBD 20:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I do not think those colors jived with WP:COLOR... Drmies (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the more accurate information you added. I was reluctant to revert, at first, but your changes to the formatting were really very bad, and destroy consistency with all preceding ministry articles. If you'd like to re-add your changes in the existing formatting, that would be acceptable. Otherwise, I had planned to endeavour to do such. RGloucester 21:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, you got me on COLOR. I'd completely forgotten about that one. Give us a few hours and I'll work some REGEX magic to reinstate my content in the standard formatting. DBD 15:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for you is greatly appreciated. I've had to wind up my contributions around here, so I haven't really been able to keep up as I would've done in the past. RGloucester 17:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Please could we agree to keep peers' names visible? We need to remember our audience aren't always going to be able to immediately tell apart peers of the same surname, for instance — we ought to give readers the best chance at drawing the information they need. Also, for Hon./Hon, see Debrett's DBD 19:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
No, because there is a proper way of referring to peers, and we follow that here, just as the government does. We are able to do this without any lack of clarity, for we have a thing called a hyperlink at our fingertips. We are not in the world of print. You must stop hiding their titles, and indeed, stop stripping MPs of their honours and styles. Doing such misleads the reader. Especially in the case of peers, the title is an integral part of their name that cannot be stripped. On the matter of 'Rt Hon', please note that peers are entitled to this title by virtue of their peerage. There are peers who are entitled to 'Rt Hon' who are not Privy Counsellors, and those who are Privy Counsellors are distinguished by the post-nominals 'PC'. On the matter of the full stops, the convention here is to use a full stop after 'hon' per Fowler's. If you'd like to change this convention, I suggest you take it up at WP:MOS. RGloucester 19:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
But we're not in the business of providing an etiquette guide — we're producing lists in order to, and only in order to, present relevant information. Now, I've been content to be corrected regarding colour-coding, and agreed that whether ministers are PCs or not, and MPs or not is so evidently relevant to the matter that they must be included (and peerage titles along with names, and QCs because having legal expertise is relevant to certain posts). I understand precisely how Rt Hon and PC work for peers, thank you, just as I am aware that recent government/civil service practice has started to favour omitting the peerly Rt Hon for non-PC peers, so that only PC peers are consistently given Rt Hon. We could happily adopt this (as I have tried), which with a key would be more clear for readers than 2 kinds of Rt Hon plus PC. DBD 19:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This is not a matter of etiquette, but of information. The relevant information is the name of the person holding the office, and in the case of a peer, the title is an integral part of the name. In fact, it is that title which allows them to participate in the government at all, and indeed, it is in the capacity of 'lord so and so' that they are serving their queen and country. This is the style we follow, and have done, for as long as these articles have existed. In addition, the style here is not to omit 'Rt Hon.' for peers, but to instead use 'PC' post-nominals. Your opinion on this matter is all well and good, but changing these conventions will require discussion at the MoS. Until the conventions are changed, we've got to follow the existing style. RGloucester 19:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
So be it. DBD 19:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your co-operation. I'll raise the matter of the 'Rt Hon' business at the MoS. RGloucester 22:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

How many Macmillan and Wilson ministries were there?[edit]

Hi again RGloucester. I'm sorry to bother, but I'm confused about this one thing concerning the ministry series. If a new ministry is formed after each general election, wouldn't that mean there were two Macmillan ministries (his first spanning between his appointment in 1957 and the 1959 general election, and the second between 1959 and his 1963 resignation) and four Wilson ministries (the first between 1964 and the 1966 snap election, the second between 1966 and the 1970 election, the third being the minority government between March and October 1974, and the fourth being from 1974 to 1976)? Perhaps I'm missing something here, I don't know.--Nevéselbert 16:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, which can be confirmed by looking at the Dod's ministries list. It seems our First Wilson ministry article is thus in error. The thing is, these articles grew up quite randomly. They were created by different people, all used random titles, and there was no consistent conception of where a government/ministry started or ended. Sorting out even a tiny amount of this mess took ages, and I'm not surprised that I missed some spots when I went through to rationalise them years ago. I suppose that we ought clean up whatever errors remain. RGloucester 16:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
What would you make of moving First Wilson ministry to Labour government 1964–70? I was thinking First and second Wilson ministry, but that's probably too long and cumbersome.--Nevéselbert 17:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that that's a fine solution to this problem. I've been working back through the articles to sort other errors of this type. RGloucester 17:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Either that or Wilson ministry 1964–70. Which do you prefer?--Nevéselbert 17:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think we can go with the 'labour government' style for this article. RGloucester 17:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think I've sorted most of them out...however, many of the old articles still need infoboxes, &c...please feel free to help in this regard. RGloucester 18:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I've managed to sort the rest of them out. Would you mind moving Second Newcastle ministry to Pitt–Newcastle ministry, as the present title is ambiguous given that the article documents more than one ministry? It's the most likely common name per sources.--Nevéselbert 19:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do so. As it happens, British Historical Facts lists the relevant ministry as Pitt–Newcastle (pg. 11), and our ministry conventions are based on that book (along with Twentieth-Century British Political Facts), so such a change is definitely in order. Thanks for your work. RGloucester 21:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC Notification[edit]

Hi RGloucester,

Given your participation on the RM for Persian Traditional Music, I thought you might be interested in an RfC taking place on Talk:Iran

Genealogizer (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for moving Chatham ministry[edit]

trout Self-trout I apologise for moving that article. The title was not ambiguous, I made a mistake. I will take much better care in future.--Nevéselbert 21:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, me more than most people. That's why we have comrades-in-arms to correct them.... RGloucester 23:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for correcting my error Face-smile.svg. Would you mind moving Second Derby ministry to Third Derby ministry per the July 1852 election? Thanks.--Nevéselbert 16:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Done. RGloucester 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi again. Just moved Third National ministry to National government 1935–37 per the 1935 election. Could you move Fourth National ministry to Fifth National ministry? Thks.--Nevéselbert 16:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
No, I cannot do that, as I know this is incorrect. They are not recorded as such. I think you need to be much more careful than you're being here. I understand that you desire consistency, but there are exceptions, and these are particular articles are some of them. We can't create a consistency that doesn't exist. It is generally accepted that there are four national ministries. Please make sure to consult reliable sources before making page moves. RGloucester 17:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
All right, my bad. So I guess a new ministry wasn't formed after the 1935 election then? How bizarre.--Nevéselbert 17:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not a matter of whether a ministry was formed, but a question of how RS refer to these particular ministries, which are exceptions in and of themselves for being called 'national'. There are a couple of similar cases where the names do not adhere to the usual conventions, which is why it is important to watch out. RGloucester 17:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Would it be okay if I redirected Fourth Baldwin ministry to Third National ministry?--Nevéselbert 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. RGloucester 17:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute at Great Stink[edit]

Hi again RGloucester. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Great Stink#Ministries in response to my being reverted here, here and here. Warm regards.--Nevéselbert 22:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

National ministries[edit]

Hi again. I'm seriously considering a move request in relation to these articles. I have thought about it long and hard, but I honestly believe that moving First National ministry to First National Government, and so on and so forth, would be the best way forward to solve the Third National ministry inconsistency problem. WP:COMMONNAME was the key factor in my judgment; "National ministry" "Baldwin" "MacDonald" "Chamberlain" renders around 3,180 results in Google Books, versus around 8,290 (double) for the same query but with "government" in place of "ministry". (I had considered First National coalition etc. but the results for that were abysmal.) Given that said ministries were named not after an individual but to describe a coalition of parties, and that "National Government" predominates the term "National ministry" in most historiography, I think that this is the correct path to take. However, I am of course interested to know what you might think about this course of action.--Nevéselbert 19:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with using the term 'National Government' with the years-in-office attached for each of these. This is sensible, as you say. I'd say we should avoid 'First National Government' and the like, so as to avoid confusion with First National Government of New Zealand, and so on. RGloucester 19:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, I guess we could bypass an RM then (moving First National Government to First National Government (Argentina) would no longer be necessary). These are the new titles I have in mind:
--Nevéselbert 21:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I prefer avoiding brackets, and following the style of disambiguation used for the existing articles that use this format. RGloucester 05:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:NCDAB, parenthetical disambiguation is the recommended from. The other options we have are either natural disambiguation (not exactly feasible) or comma-separated disambiguation (usually restricted to ambiguous geographic names). The existing articles that use the format "Party government 1XXX–XX" are wrong for a second reason: WP:DATERANGE; since last year, four-digits on the right side of year–year ranges (rather than two) is now official wikipolicy. We should go about moving them all to comply with the MOS.--Nevéselbert 15:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
DATERANGE was only recently changed to favour the four digit format, which is why those articles are as they are. Of course, they should be changed to comply with the guidelines as they are now. However, you're wrong about disambiguation. Writing 'So and So Government 1957–1989' is considered a form of natural disambiguation, so again, there is no need for brackets. RGloucester 15:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
That's not natural disambiguation at all; according to WP:NATURALDIS it means Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names. Searching Google Books for say "Conservative Government 1957-63" and the parenthetical style is predominant. Besides, the following sentence hardly makes perfect grammatical sense: "The Tory government 1783–1801 introduced the first income tax". Either the years are parenthesised or a preposition (such as "of") is added before the date range. Brackets are fine, scores of articles presently use them.--Nevéselbert 15:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with brackets, but they are not required. There are reliable sources that write in this way, specifically, the source that is the basis for these sorts of articles. Certainly, I think this qualifies as natural disambiguation. I simply don't see the need to move all these articles to parenthetical brackets. RGloucester 18:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, I left a message at WP:MOSTALK#Using parenthetical disambiguation and editors seem to agree with you. Would you mind if I moved the National ministry articles (with "government" in lowercase and without parentheses for the date ranges)?--Nevéselbert 21:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
It's fine by me. RGloucester 06:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

New move request for New York[edit]

In case you are still unaware of this discussion, there is a new discussion for renaming New York to New York (state). As you participated in the previous discussion on this topic, you may want to express your opinion in the new disussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

‎Please see WP:FLRC[edit]

I have nominated List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Nevéselbert 20:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)