User talk:Rob984

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:WheelerRob)
Jump to: navigation, search

Royal Army[edit]

I didn't understand the explanation for your edit. Mesoso2 (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rob984&action=edit&section=30

@Mesoso2 "term" should not redirect to "term (disambiguation)". So you need to request Royal Army (disambiguation) be moved to Royal Army at Talk:Royal Army (disambiguation). However, you need to demonstrate "Royal Army" has other uses. As far as I know, the Royal Army of Oman is the only entry referred to in English as "Royal Army". I think Royal Army (disambiguation) should be deleted considering the other entries are only referred to as "Royal Army" in other languages. Rob984 (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Surely the existence of a disambiguation page demonstrates other uses, and someone would have to offer some evidence that Royal Army normally refers to the Royal Army of Oman. The redirect of "Royal Army" to Oman's, when the disambiguation page shows many other possibilities, is not discussed on its talk page. Mesoso2 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's two sources for the Royal Army of Oman:
Editors assume partial title match = alternative use. It doesn't. It has to be demonstrated that the entry is referred to by that term in English.
Rob984 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain[edit]

Hi Rob. You changed 2 of my recent edits. Here is my reason for editing in case you misunderstood: Great Britain is the more accepted term just for the island as the term Britain is often used to mean the whole of the United Kingdom not just the island. The political meaning of Great Britain is extended to include all the offshore islands that come under England, Scotland and Wales not just the mainland (e.g. the Shetland Islands and the Hebrides) i.e. all of the UK except Northern Island. AlwynJPie (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlwynJPie Politically, you're absolutely correct. But conventionally, "Britain" refers to either. When talking about the history of Great Britain especially, eg "Roman Britain". Rob984 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your examples Rob984. That won't go down well with some of our Irish cousins who regard themselves as being born in Britain. AlwynJPie (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Britain can mean a number of different things and therefore should not be described in the lead as another name for Great Britain. AlwynJPie (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Rockall[edit]

Why did you remove Category:Territorial disputes of Denmark from Rockall? They still claim it and the UK claims it, or have I missed something? ClemMacGána (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@ClemMacGána Only the UK claims it. Ireland has formally rejected the British territorial claim. Not sure why, I think it is covered in the article. There was a lot of original research on the article a few years ago about Danish and Icelandic claims. That has since been removed. Rob984 (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I missed the Danish submission of December 2010 in which they recognised the 200 mile limit, and since Rockall is 198 miles from North Uist, they now accept that it belongs to the UK. Previously they claimed that the edge of the continental shelf (the Rockall Trough) marked the UK limit. The area beyond 200 miles is still disputed. Denmark continues to claim most of the Rockall Plateau overlapping UK, Irish and Icelandic claims. Nonetheless Denmark does not now dispute UK sovereignty over Rockall. Curiously Iceland, which does not claim it, does 'not consent' to the new Danish position.
You mention “Ireland has formally rejected the British territorial claim. Not sure why,”. Ireland accepts that it is in the UK EEZ, but rejects that it is “territory”. It is a rock incapable of sustaining human life and therefore no different than the sea bed. If it was territory then it would carry other rights such as : airspace, EEZ (minerals including oil), and fishing. But it isn't so it doesn't. Regards ClemMacGána (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Lordship of Ireland[edit]

In every single Wikipedia pages (except this one), the image sections of predecessing and sucessing polities would be left empty if it doesn't have an unanimous representation, or doesn't have a representation at all (like in this case). It is a universal common practice since the birth of Wikipedia. It is forgivable for users putting disputed flag/coat of arms in the image section, but insisting to type words in that section while that polity doesn't have a flag at all…the name of that polity is rather short so it's possible to fit in those words for this case, but there are also plenty of articles that have long names, it's thus unfeasible to use words as representations, therefore the section should be left blank under universal practice.

Replying to your question, that happens to all of the Wikipedia articles about polities that doesn't have a flag/coat of arms. Pktlaurence (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pktlaurence Gaelic Ireland isn't a polity, it's a period of Irish history. Personal, I would rather only have polities in the successors/predecessors. Anyway, I disagree with the "universal common practice", words are better then no representation at all. Not sure why they wouldn't fit. Rob984 (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear Rob,

Regardless of the fact that if it is a polity, historical period, nation, state or any stuff (anyway it has got nothing to do with our topic at all), I'm fine with having historical periods for predecessing/successing sections as with polities. What matters is that the 'universal common practice' doesn't come without a reason. I can guarantee that the Lordship of Ireland (together with the Kingdom of Ireland) is the ONLY polity article that used words in the predecessing/sucessing section, and ALL THE OTHERS just leave it blank. Blank boxes existed in plenty of articles and for a very long period of time, and the existence are just FINE. The problem of using words is that many articles have long names and if you use your method you'll have to cram a train of words into that small space. You may argue that in the case of Gaelic Ireland, the name is short enough to be crammed in, but the act of cramming itself is already wrong in principle. Besides, format and uniformity plays a crucial role in Wikipedia. Pktlaurence (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

British people[edit]

I know newspapers often use Brits or Britons to refer to British people but the term Britons really refers to the natives of Roman and pre-Roman Britain. I wouldn't say Britishers is archaic as it is still commonly used.

I don't like the term informal. Who decides what is formal and what isn't? AlwynJPie (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@AlwynJPie Given context, I'm sure "Britons" can refer to either the ancient people or the modern nation. As for formality, I think "Britons" is formal, while "Brits" is informal, but I agree it subjective, and unnecessary. Also, I don't think including "Brits" is necessary considering it's a short form for "Britons", as oppose to a entirely separate term, but I don't really mind either way. As for "Britishers", I've never heard the term, nor seen it used, so I can't comment. Rob984 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Parks Police Service[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Parks Police Service, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.quazoo.com/q/Hammersmith%20and%20Fulham%20Parks%20Constabulary.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wales[edit]

I understand your frustration. PS: It looks like I'm being slagged :( GoodDay (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, please be careful around those articles. I don't want you going through what I went through, a few years ago. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Southern Ireland (1921–1922)[edit]

Hi Rob. I don't object to this page move, although I wish you had joined the discussion on the talk page before I did my move. If you look at my contributions you will see about 50 articles where I changed the links following my page move; you will need to change all of these again. There are between 100 and 200 more articles here where I was sitting down to change the links when I saw that you had moved the page, so you will need to do those too. I hope that's not too much trouble. If it is, you can always reverse the move and throw the responsibility back on me. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the discussion. I've done the articles you hadn't yet changed. I will leave the redirects for the time being because someone may change the title again. If it's stable for a few weeks I will change them also. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Scolaire (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bellerophon talk to me 01:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Explanation[edit]

In the course of performaing some routine maintenance work, I noticed this edit of yours, whose summary reads, in part: "general infobox formatting changes. Unbulleted lists create large line-spaces so aren't really appropriate for infoboxes."

If I find I need to correct an infobox, then as well as correcting the duplicate parameter error, I also take the opportunity to run a little tidy-up script that, inter alia, replaces hard-coded HTML line-breaks using {{plainlist}} (but only where they're used to separate list items, not in other cases). The main reason for doing this is accessibility, see WP:ACCESS, especially WP:VLIST. The plainlist template was, in fact, specifically designed for use in infoboxes/sidebars, see its documentation for further info and links.

It is true that the infobox is now a bit longer, but this doesn't matter on such a long page. Personally, I think the infobox looks nicer and is easier to read using the correct list formatting, since it is easier to distinguish the separate list items. But that doesn't matter very much, the main reason is accessibility.

Regards, --NSH002 (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

NSH002 OK, thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I agree it's easier to read, but I think it looks odd that the line spaces are larger then other line spaces in the infobox. That said, I don't think it matters very much either. I think there is a parameter for the plain list template that allows changing the line spaces however. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is possible, see Template:Infobox#CSS styling, but such tweaking tends to be frowned on (for an admittedly extreme example, see the fate of Sardanaphalus). Generally better to stick to standard formatting where possible. --NSH002 (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

largest cities in the eu[edit]

"It states "Largest cities". Paris and London are the largest cities in the EU. What's the problem?)"

Well according to Wikipedia London has a population of 8,400,000+ and Paris 2,200,000+ while the number for Berlin for example is given as 3,500,000+ So perhaps I should ask what is wrong with clarification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnisome (talkcontribs) 19:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:European_Union/Archive_28#Largest_city. Bring up the issue at the article's talk page if you still have any concerns. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Source[edit]

What's you're source for the British army not being a combatant in the Irish dissident campaign any longer? Citadel48 (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Citadel48 Operation Banner ended in 2007. Is there any source that current UK military forces stationed in Northern Ireland have a domestic security role? Rob984 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello - 'Paris urban area' and 'Paris' distinction[edit]

Hello,

Writing you here because this is a longtime point of contention (by those trying to skew things for foreign ignorance to make things look 'bigger' (to better 'compete' with other international cities)), and it would be good not to blow it all open again.

You are are right that the urban area is more important than the metropolitan area (no such apellation exists for that little-used demographic tool, anyway), but the common distinction in use here is the 'Paris agglomeration' (agglomération Parisienne) when talking of the urban area, and 'Région Parisienne' (a vague reference to the Île-de-France) when speaking of an area outside of that. 'Paris' is the city within its adminsitrative limits (as a commune and department - divisions very strong in the local psyche). I think if we stick to that language, everything will be okay (and factual!).

Take care, cheers, THEPROMENADER   10:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know why I mentioned the region.
I agree mostly. The Department of Paris is the City of Paris, while Hauts-de-Seine, Seine-Saint-Denis, Val-de-Marne are Paris' suburbs. However I think all are consider "Paris", at least by there inhabitants. Claims such as "La Defence is not Paris", and should not be covered on Paris' article are wrong in my opinion.
I think many editors like to use the city limits to give London a marginal advantage, even though London has no city limits. I managed to get a compromise at European Union at least.
Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wales[edit]

Walk away from it, Rob. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Celtic League[edit]

Their website says: "The Celtic League is an inter Celtic organisation that campaigns for the political, language, cultural and social rights of the Celtic nations. It does this across a broad range of issues. It highlights human rights abuse, monitors military activity and focuses on political, socio-economic, environmental, language and cultural issues, which generally or specifically affect one or more of the Celtic countries in some way. The organisation also aims to further each of the Celtic nations right to independence and to promote the benefits of inter Celtic cooperation..." That is a much more nuanced set of aims than your suggestion that it "openly seeks to create six sovereign states". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle...
Political freedom for the Celtic countries is one of the fundamental aims of the League, because without this freedom it would be extremely difficult to secure our other aims. This freedom can only be achieved if the Celtic countries become independent states in their own right. In turn the Celtic League believes that all peoples have the right to pursue self determination should they so wish. This is one of the reasons why the League shows solidarity in its work with other peoples of the world who are also striving for that freedom e.g. Basques, Catalans, Tibetans, Maoris, etc. and are congratulatory of those people who finally obtain it.
Current Campaigns, celticleague.net
The organisation may promote self-determination in a wider sense, but I don't see how they "promote pan-Celtic self-determination". They promote independence of what they regard as "Celtic countries": Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Cornwall and Brittany.
Considering this is one of their "fundamental aims", I think it justifies mention in the introduction.
I think it's in breach of WP:NPOV to state an organisation that campaigns for the independence of Cornwall, where in the 2011 census, 86% of the population stated they had no Cornish national identity, and 87% of population stated there national identity as English, British or both, "promotes pan-Celtic self-determination", solely based on there own claims.
I fail to see what activity of there's involves promoting "pan-Celtic" self-determination. Is there a secondary source for that per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV?
Rob984 (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that "promoting pan-Celtic self-determination" is poor and unsourced wording, but "promoting pan-Celtic independence" is no better. It is the organisation that is "pan-Celtic", not the self-determination. I suggest that what you need to do - rather than adding contentious wording to the lede without changing the main article text - is to use their own website text on the campaigns to expand the section in the article dealing with their campaigns - for instance, by adding a reference or two to a currently unsourced and somewhat thin paragraph. And, more importantly, what all editors - including me - need to do is to find references from independent sources commenting on the organisation, and rewrite parts of the article based on what those sources - rather than the organisation itself - say. Much of that article is in a very bad state, and is in great need of improvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Official language of the UK[edit]

These sources provided by another user states that the UK doesn't have a official language;

[1], [2], [3]

Seqqis (talk)

@Seqqis An epetition? Non of those sources are reputably enough on official UK matters to dispute the British Government. And, the BBC article doesn't even claim English is not an official language. Rob984 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Density[edit]

I was intrigued by this edit changing the value in a "|density" field in {{Infobox England region}}, which in turn calls {{Infobox settlement}}. There are two points, firstly that I don't think that there is such a parameter, and secondly that it isn't obvious where you got your revised value from. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@David Biddulph I didn't mean to change that. And yeah, I don't know, I removed it anyway. Rob984 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"Dominion of Ireland" redirect[edit]

Hi Rob, I didn't understand the argument in your edit summary. The Irish Free State wasn't called Ireland? Certainly it's not correct, and possibly very inflammatory, to refer to the Republic of Ireland as "Dominion of Ireland". Currently, the Irish Free State article says it was a British dominion from 1922 to 1937, with the ROI listed as the successor state. The only mention of a dominion at the Republic of Ireland article says, again, that the Irish Free State became one in 1922. There's a redirect to ROI, Dominion of Ireland (1937–1949). I've poked around but can't find anything to support that designation. What's going on here? --BDD (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi BDD, the state named "Ireland" was formed in 1937, but it didn't become a republic until the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. As far as I know it was still regarded as a dominion by the British Government until 1948. However, the Irish Government would never had described the state as a "dominion", and the British Government would never have described it as "Ireland". So instead the UK used the phrases "Dominion of the Irish Free State" and after 1937, "Dominion of Eire".[4][5][6] I'm not sure what use the phrase "Dominion of Ireland" has, if any. Rob984 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
So it could be called a dominion from 1922 to 1948, right? Surely it's less wrong to point the phrase to the IFS rather than the ROI. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@BDD Yes. And maybe if you regard Republic of Ireland as only referring to the post-1937 state, but in reality Republic of Ireland (the article, not term) covers the 26 counties during the entire period of being a dominion, even when they were the Irish Free State. Also I'm not sure Irish Free State is the primary topic and I don't think a reader searching that term really knows what specific Irish state they are looking for. Anyway, I'm not bothered really as it gets very little traffic. Rob984 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I've got it! We can retarget to Dominion#Irish Free State / Ireland. It clearly explains the extent to which Ireland was a dominion, and has links to both the IFS and ROI articles. --BDD (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinion[edit]

Hello Rob. I have a question: what map you think should be in the infobox in article of Malta. Current map [7][8] is standard map on based on map of EU and Europe, used in thirty articles about countries in EU/Europe. New map is 50% Europe and 50% Africa [9][10]. In my opinion, all member states of European Union should have the same - standard map in the infobox - according to the status quo. What is your opinion? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2)
17:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man Well definitely not that one. I commented at the article. Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Supercarrier Dispute[edit]

I noticed that you are interested in developing the Supercarrier Article. There is currently an RfC whether to include a section "Proposed Supercarriers". And also a discussion whether INS Vishal qualifies as a Supercarrier? (Same as your doubt). I request the help of experienced editors like you to help bring a consensus in both disputes. Regards--M.srihari (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

What is the problem?[edit]

What is the problem? My edit summary stated what. I still see no reason as to why it needs to be in quotation marks. Anyways you should abide by WP:BRD when you are reverted rather than reinsert an edit that has been challenged. Mabuska (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mabuska It's pretty common in English to make a distinction between using a word or phrase and mentioning it. Mentioned words or phrases often appear between quotation marks or in italics, and some style guides insist that mentioned words or phrases must always be made visually distinct in this manner. Failure to properly distinguish use from mention can, in some instances, produce false, misleading, or meaningless statements.
I only reverted because you seem like you are oblivious to this concept. As does Snowded, who, from their edit summary, doesn't even seem to realise the word is being mentioned, not used. Putting the word in italic or quotations has no implication on the point being made: that the state is named "Ireland".
"Ireland" is the name of a state.
Ireland is a state.
If you don't think their is any point in distinguishing use from mention then okay.
Rob984 (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah I see. I don't think there is any possibility of Failure to properly distinguish use from mention can, in some instances, produce false, misleading, or meaningless statements. in this instance, but I now see where you are coming from. Obviously with another editor having reverted, it would need discussed at the talk page. Mabuska (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Orthographic colour schemes[edit]

Conventions change over time. The colour scheme that I've used matches the wikipedia convention as it was at some time in the past, but may not represent the current scheme. FWIW, my script generates CSS at the beginning of the SVG file which can be easily changed for a different colour scheme. However, the globes produced by my script are more visibly shaded around the edges (making them appear less flat). For that, there is no convention and I'm making a stylistic judgement. gringer (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

State of Palestine - Map[edit]

Could we begin our argument agian? exept for the fact I was generaly raged last week, I think we have reached to an un practical argument. Bolter21 (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rob984: well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talkcontribs)
@Bolter21 I replied at the article's talk page. Rob984 (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)