User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 016

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

Reversion in "James Craig" (disambiguation)

Hi, thanks for your comment in my user's page. Rather than reverting, it'd been better to remove the "extra" wikilinks. That's what I've did when restoring my extended comment. Additionally, maybe you can explain why my entry was reverted when there are another 3 entries in the same page with more than one wikilink? As for example:

• James Craig (politician), former member of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly
• James Ireland Craig, cartographer who created the Craig retroazimuthal projection

Thanks & kind regards, DPdH (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

Two reasons for just reverting: a) it's quicker; b) this is a disambiguation page, so I wasn't persuaded that it was important to retain the extra info. All that's needed enough for a reader who was looking for a particular article to identify it from the list, and anyone looking for "a ship called the James Craig" had all the info there. Your text is on the long side, and the restoration data is superfluous for a dab page.

As to the two you listed, the answer is in the box at the top of the edit screen: "Generally only one navigable link (blue link) belongs in each bulleted entry." In the case of those two articles, the main link is redlink to a page which doesn't yet exist.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Now's clear to me. Regards, DPdH (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Virendra Sharma

Hi BHG. Glad to see you active again. You were missed very badly. If you have time at all could you have a look at this bio article. It the moment it reads like a cross between a very bad cv and a party political leaflet. Cheers - Galloglass 11:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Galloglass! Thanks for the welcome :) I decided to do a bit of work on a few articles, then did a few more, and then got stuck in again ... you know how it goes. In a few weeks I'll probably scale back a lot.

Anyway, I took a look at the Virendra Sharma article (current version), and the reason I am slow to reply is that I wanted to think about it a bit. I'm afraid that even after a re-reading a few hours later, I can't agree with your description of it.

It's not a good article at all, just a scrappy collection of factoids, of which the most visible bit is the snippets from theyworkforyou.com. I don't see any of it as inaccurate or partisan, but with the opinion polls as gloomy for Labour as they are these days, a record of strong support for Brown and Blair is unlikely to be a helpful factor in securing re-election. So while it doesn't look like an anti-Labour leaflet, it would be a rather poor pro-Labour leaflet.

If you think you can improve the article to make it less CV-like, you'd be doing good work. But I don't see bias a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it BHG. I thought about taking it in hand myself but bio isn't really my thing and I'm just too tempted to chop all those scrappy little factoids out, which wouldn't really leave much left. Thanks anyway though. - Galloglass 23:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Nearly forgot to thank you .So thanks for the Barnstar Gnevin (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It was very well-deserved! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

im such a computer illiterate but i found you!

Hi, I see as an admin you edited my page or was logged doing something helpful. Can you Please Please Please explain how i verify contents in the only sources are copies of newspaper aricles that are on my own website???? I have been trying to do it for months.Months i tells ya! spowerman@hotmail.com thank you Sp --—Preceding unsigned comment added by jdslimited (talk • contribs) 22:23, 7 March 2009

I assume that by "my page", you mean the article about you, i.e. Sean Power (actor).

Thanks for drawing it to my attention. The article appears to have been largely written you, which it shouldn't be: see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. So I have deleted nearly all of the content, and left it with a few points which can be verified from sources other than you.

In future, please understand that it's best not to edit articles about yourself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked for assistance and you came back with a smart arse answer. Do you get paid for your job?? It is not written by me but by a biographer- maybe if you did your job you'd see that my question was how do i show that (the source material is 30 published newspaper articles) typical of Wikipedia and of Irish fekn bureaucracy, you sure you dont work for the civil service?? you have the right attitude for it ya gobshite SeanPower —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdslimited (talk • contribs) 11:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, BHG is a wikipedia administrator and volunteer who merely helps enforce the rules around here. They have been developed by consensus over time with a purpose. One of those is CIVILITY. You are welcome to put suggestions on the Sean Power talk page with references; somebody else might then incorporate them. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for barging my way in, but one would assume a highly trained actor wouldn't resort to bad language like that. (Not to mention the spelling in places).  rdunnPLIB  11:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Spring family

Please would you help with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sir_William_Spring_II. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yikes!! What a massive edifice of hoaxing. :(

Well done you for uncovering it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not me but Tryde. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I spotted that after posting, when I re-read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Baron_Lavenham. But well done you for bringing the whole edifice to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What do we do with Sir William Spring, 1st Baronet? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Howsabout we referenced it precisely to the exact page in Rayment, tag it as {{refimprove}}, and leave a note on the talkpage?

It seems to me that I was over-hasty in suggesting deletion. There is a reliable source for his existence as holder of the first baronetcy, and the only thing that seems to be question is his membership of the Long Parliament, which we can annotate with a {{fact}} tag. There is nothing on him in the Oxford DNB, but if anyone has access to Debrett's or Burke's, they can probably resolve the queries.

How does that sound to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fabians

I responded to your comments at Talk:Fabian Society. I think your reversion sweeping and unjustified, and your wording ill-considered. I suggest we discuss the matter there. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See you there! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I responded there in some detail more than 24 hours ago. I would much prefer to discuss on the Talk:Fabian Society page than to merely revert your reversion of my work on the Fabian Society. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland collaboration - your propositions

Would I be right in thinking we are not expected to make statements in response to these, but rather simply to endorse or oppose them? Mooretwin (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The idea is simply to identify points where there is agreement, and points where there is disagreement.

This came to me after reading some of the discussion on other statements, where it seemed to me that one of the difficulties which arose on several occasions was an apparent misunderstanding of other editors views on some of these points, with some editors wrongly thinking that others accepted or rejected a particular proposition. Hopefully this will help us to identify any points where there is an actual disagreement rather than just a misunderstanding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for input

Hi. I'm not sure if you've seen my reply to your comments at this CfD yet. If not, could you have a look and tell me what you think about the revised proposal I set out. I think it would deal with the ambiguity problem you set out while at the same time allowing the subcategories to be speedily renamed for conformity with the change. If you don't like the revised suggestion that's fine too, but I did want to know what you thought about it since you commented before. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'm on my way… --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks! I stumbled upon the whole thing when I edited Thomas Spring Rice, 1st Baron Monteagle of Brandon and didn't recognise the title Baron Lavenham. I presume User:00vis will be banned indefinitely. Regards, Tryde (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, to uncover these things it takes someone diligent enough to follow through on any apparent anomalies by checking and reporting what they found. Many editors would have just moved on to the next article on their to-do list, but your thoroughness was what revealed this edifice.

As to 00vis (talk · contribs), I had considered applying a block last night, but since some of the XFD debates list at User talk:00vis are still open, I thought it only fair to give 00vis a chance to comment if she/he wants to. OOvis hasn't edited for a few weeks, so I rather doubt we'll get his/her input to the XFDs, but that absence also means that a block does not have to be applied right now. I did try emailing 00vis yesterday to say "deletion debates underway, your participation would be much welcomed", but there is no email link on the talk page, so I guess that 00vis has not registered an email address. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He is back. I am having problems with AGF. To block or not to block? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

UK elections template

Comment posted here by Number 57 (talk · contribs) moved in this edit to Template talk:United Kingdom elections#More_entries.

Best to discuss a template on its own talk page, so please continue the discussion at Template talk:United Kingdom elections#More_entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Would you please review ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! edit war and WP:3RR edits to Talk:Republic of Ireland‎. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I might be considered to be "involved", so the best thing would be for you to file a report at WP:AN/EW and leave it to admins who cannot be accused of being partisan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I did that but as I have never used the page before. I hope it is done properly as he is still continuing to revert. Perhaps you can check I have done it properly. Thanks Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't actually get the format right (you're suppoosed to list the diffs), but I know it's a bit of a tedious process. Anyway, thankfully someone has decided to be non-bureaucratic about it. So your report has been acted upon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I used the bot the generate the code but was not even sure that was exactly right. I should learn how to do that properly. Anyway, silence for a little while unless they are a sock and return under another name sooner. Could this actually be a sock of one of our Irish article disruptors? ww2censor (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder. It's not like sockpuppetry is exactly a new phenomenon in this territory. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User Deletion

Can you delete me please? Thefloogadooga (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wikipedia does apparently allow editors to delete their userpages, which may be relevant to the history of their contribution to wikipedia and to interacton with other editors, even though this removes information which may relevant in the future to other editors. I think that is unnecessarily destructive.

So although wikipedia allows this, I refuse to be the person who enacts this sort of destruction. If you really do want to remove your pages, there are instructions on how to ask for this at Wikipedia:User page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_pages.3F. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

AlertBot

Following this edit, you might have missed the fact that I already noted that we have the AlexNewArtBot results that are populated daily, and its archives, and I noted it in the assessment FAQs a little while ago. Do we really need two? Is there any real difference? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The the AlexNewArtBot results is a great thing, but yes -- there is a difference. AlexNewArtBot tracks new articles, but ArticleAlerts are about CFD, AFD, PROD, Good article nominations, RFCs, and all that stuff.

See Article alerts for a fuller explanation, or see this example of what it does: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article alerts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

OK, I see what this one does. It will analyse the tagged articles, while the AlexNewArtBot makes a list of newly created articles that may or may not be tagged but are likely to be Irish related articles. Another Bot I subscribed to is User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings that lists articles according to their cleanup needs. I just got it for the philately project and the results are interesting for editors who are looking for specific type of work to do. More ideas. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's another very handy one I wasn't aware of. We should set it to work on WP:IE as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should also subscribe to this one. BTE, here is the latest AlexNewArtBot posting] that was generated about 2 hours ago. TVM. ww2censor (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the cleanup listing subscription under the Tasks section. ww2censor (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"British" being contentious

Thought I'd reply here as the UK election template isn't really the page for the discussion. I think this is nothing more than pandering to the Irish nationalist lobby. Whether they like it or not (and I don't like it either - I'd love to see the UK dissolved), N Ireland is currently part of the UK, and the demomyn of the UK is British (as it says in our passports). The fact that they've made such a fuss on Wikipedia and managed to get people to avoid using the term when applied to the whole country (including N Ireland) is very sad indeed; its on a par with the muppets who are killing Israel/Palestinian articles with their demands that normal phrases (e.g. occupied territories, Israeli settlements) be avoided because they claim they are partisan etc. As for the "mainland" issue... пﮟოьεԻ 57 01:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any merit in using a naming format which causes controversy and division if an accurate, neutral and workable alternative is available. In this case, there is.

Comments about "pandering" remind me of the reaction 25 years ago to attempts to encourage the use of gender-neutral language. There was much harrumphing about the calamitous consequences of this, but nowadays such usage is the norm, and it works. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

PMGI

I am working on an article on the "Postmasters General of Ireland" but have found some curious/odd references to the same title though they predate the establishment of the post in 1784. Knowing that you have some knowledge of various noblemen perhaps you could have a look at User talk:Ww2censor/PMGI where I have listed the references I found. I wonder how accurate peerage.com is and I seem to recall noticing you confirming some Burke's Peerage and/or DNB entries, so I presume you have access. It could do with some fleshing out though the sources are difficult but besides the references it is basically ready for prime time. Any advise gladly accepted and anything to get away from the edit warring and reverting that is going on these days. TIA ww2censor (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank for the msg.

I am just about to go away for a few days, but will take a look when I get back. I'm not really that good on nobles (I have few sources and no particular fascination other than insofar as they pop up in he political stuff which does interest me), and I wondered if you had considered asking at WP:PEERAGE? There are several folks here who really know their stuff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, have a great time, if you are going for fun. I will try over there. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fabians again

On 11 March I did a series of edits on Fabian Society. You immediately reverted them all, stating on the article talkpage that “this is an encyclopedia not a blog”, my edits were “a hatchet job” and were POV . I disputed this. You admitted that you were “mistaken on one point. But not on others”, giving three examples and queries, and saying you would evaluate my moves of passages the following day. I made a lengthy rebuttal to this. All of this was within a few hours of my work on the article.

I heard nothing more from you, though clearly your account is being used. I reminded you of your intention on 13 March. I still have heard nothing, and so am reminding you again. You have accused me of bad editing, and I do not think that is justified. I would be happy to discuss with you the improvement of the article on its talkpage, or, if you don’t wish to contribute to the discussion, I would like you to confirm that you will in future look at the overall impact of any changes made, and modify that which seems to need it, rather than resorting to the reversion of an entire swathe of work. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brainybabe, I'm sorry. As I have just explained at Talk:Fabian Society, I was hoping to get time to look at everything properly, but at the points when I thought I'd have time I got sidetracked.

I have replied in a bit more detail there, but as I noted there, if I would do the same thing again. When such a deeply hostile and unsourced "quote" is moved to the lead, it grossly unbalances an article, and makes me seriously question the judgement of an on editor who puts it there. In that situation, it's much better to revert all the changes than to leave in place edits whose impact I haven't had time to assess but which are likely to be highly problematic if they repeat the sort of bias demonstrated in the lead.

In that situation, it's much better to revert all, and discus afterwards. I'd much prefer to be mistaken (as I was in some aspects of my initial reading), than to either leave the awful lead in place or revert to a previous version by the same editor unless I had checked it out very thoroughly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Harold Macmillan

BHG an anon editor seems to be pushing an edit that does not seem to be supported by any evidence I've been able to find. Could you check the recent edit history and consider semi-protecting this page. Thanks - Galloglass 21:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Article now fully protected, per explanation at Talk:Harold Macmillan#Article_protected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BHG. When I requested the protection I didn't realise we were dealing with a sock but the evidence looks solid. Cheers - Galloglass 08:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

MOM!

Hey! What do you think about this proposal? Thanx!--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sallicio, it's an interesting idea in principle, but I think that the problem is that it fails in the review mechanism: it seems to me that either the admin passes the probationary period with undue scrutiny, or we have an RFA with all the same problems. Worth exploring further, though: as someone else commented there, it's both too hard to create new admins and too hard to desysop any genuinely rogue admins.

Anyway, I hope you're keeping well, and enjoying your editing! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Then what do you think about an "Assistant" Admin with reduced buttons...such as page deletion only or something of that nature. It might help more editors pass the RfA when it comes time and relieve some of the pressure off of the "Full" Admins?--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ivana Bacik

Dear Brown Eyed Girl,

The references that I used are from a number of different sources. You should note that Ivana Bacik has written numerous articles for the Irish Independent (see her website)and thus to dismiss them as biased as coming from that particular source is unfair to the largest newspaper group in Ireland. I would guess that most media references are from the Independent Group on Wikipedia as it is free to upload unlike the Irish Times The article that you chose to delete was actually sourced from the Irish Times and Senator Bacik used that offensive term to a political opponent, which at the term merited political and media comment at the time, and you should note that it was used by her and not at her, which while generally out of character should be disclosed, I believe, to Wikipedia users so that they get the full picture of her temperament.With regard to her book, the fact that it merited critcial comment in the main body of the largest sellling newspaper in Ireland (as opposed to the obsure literary review section)is newsworthy and it would be excessive censorship to have it airbrushed out. For the record I would like it known that I support, as does Ivana Bacik, a womans unconditional right to have an abortion in all cases without restriction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skreen (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Ivana_Bacik" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skreen (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Ivana Bacik#Unbalanced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Philipstown

Hello, hello and hello - I have a request or rather a question: A little while ago you have created a template about the constituencies in County Louth (Template:Louth constituencies), including a link to Philipstown (County Louth). While I know that a constituency named Philipstown was located in King's County, I can't find anything about the latter (even at [1]), so are you sure about its existence?

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick answer, no I'm not sure at all! I think I just picked up the constituencies from the list at Parliament of Ireland. That list may be inaccurate, and I may have made a mistake, so any checks you can do will be great.

I'm on the road at the moment, so sorry I can't check myself this week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Phoe. While BHG is travelling, perhaps these might give you some clues: Lewis's Topographical Dictionary and Irish Times placenames database though I only see Philipstown, King's County stated to be a parliamentary borough. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, quick correction: the list I used is at Irish House of Commons#Constituencies, not at Parliament of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yepp, I have it discovered and also which user inserted the link. Momentarily, I'm waiting for a response. Happy travelling to you and thanks for the clarification. ww2censor, thanks also for the very interesting links.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Heya ... the format of some succession boxes you have created recently, differs from the standard we generally use, so please would you avoid the "alongside - field" and take the following code instead. Thanks.

{{s-bef| before = }} {{s-ttl| title = [[Member of Parliament]] for <br/> <small> with </small> | years = }} {{s-aft| after = }}

A correct box should look like this:

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 05:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Phoe, there was a huge amount of work done on this last year at WP:SBS, allowing the use of a wider range of parameters, which allows much neater presentation of situations like new constituencies and multi-members seats: that's what the alongside parameter etc all does, and it does it much more elegantly than squishing these things into other fields. Using before=new constituency produces silly output of "Preceded by New constituency", which is illogical: if it was a new constituency, there was no predecessor.

There was a move to abolish the {{succession box}} template entirely, in favour of the more powerful {{s-bef}}, {{s-ttl}}, {{s-aft}}, {{s-new}}, {{s-non}} series ... but I resisted that because {{succession box}} does fine for the simple cases of one person succeeding another in a single-member constituency. But it only works for that simple case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ehm ... I have'nt urged you to use {{succession box}}, but as you can see above and at my recent edits I use {{s-bef}} by myself. I like the new system and its possibilities - although taken strictly it is not new at all; I believe I have it seen the first time two years ago.

Back to the story: The parameter "alongside" may be nice, but its produced text ("served alongside name") is in the most cases simply too long and as User:Peterkingiron has pointed out on my talkpage) it fits better to American than English, British, Irish or Scottish articles. For these reasons the "with" added after the constituency is more practically, more suitable and apart from that just the format prescribed on Wikipedia:SBS/G#i._Parliamentary_seats_.28s-par.29. By the way you can see there also that we don't us "from" and "to", brackets or semicolons with the years other MP have sat. Best wishes !

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for a slow reply (I'm on the road).

Thanks for clarifying what your concern is, but I think you are mistaken. There are several good reasons for using the alongside= parameter:

1. It's a separate piece of data to the title. Keeping it in a separate field allows its presentation to be adjusted by tweaking the template, which can't be done if it is joined onto another piece of data
2. The markup for the alongside= parameter is simpler. That makes it easier to use, and easier to read if it needs to be edited
3. The current display of the alongside= parameter places it below the years in office, which is a much more logical position. Using the "with" markup splits the title from the years in office, and does so in a way which will be confusing for those reading the pages through an audio reader

So far as I can see, your objection is solely at you don't like the "served alongside" text. There may be a case for changing the text which the {{s-ttl}} template inserts, so I will raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization#alongside_parameter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

Thanks for that. I was looking over the page earlier and was sure I'd endorsed my own statement - meant to check, then got distracted elsewhere. I assumed it was normal practice as you'd done it on your own assertions, but would be happy to remove it (obviously) if we're not supposed to. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. There's a case for and against, but I object to one editor inventing a rule without (AFAICS) seeking consensus for it in the WP:IECOLL process.

This was particularly disruptive in the case of my multiple-proposition statement, where MusicInTheHouse (talk · contribs) removed the crucial point that I oppose one of my own series of propositions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(Slightly nervous laugh)

So, uh, BHG ... —have you given any thought to these subcategories? (Heh heh—slightly nervous laugh.) It would be a relatively mammoth job, even to speedy them, which I don't think is an option now considering our chosen format. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You can take the above inquiry with a grain of salt—I'm not at all trying to be critical of your "inaction" on this. Just curious as to where you are at this point in thinking about these ... Hence the nervous laugh as I approach the issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Should I bear in mind the date when reading this? ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe. I was thinking about ... not "doing", necessarily, because it's too big to think about that—but I was thinking about "thinking about" perhaps doing something about the subcategories. I certainly didn't want to pre-empt anything you might have been planning, but at the same time I thought you probably were not planning anything for the same reason I'm not thinking about actually doing anything quite yet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Summary study

Hi, I have checked out some of your claims on this page [2], and I'm afraid that on examination the stats are not accurate. I'm certainly not going to attempt to make a "study of your study" as it would take too long, but have you done any auditing on the links proffered? PurpleA (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have done only a little checking, and am well aware that the sort of search tends to overstate results for a number of reasons. One problem is that some documents are counted more than once, since the search may pick up the same document in different formats; another problem is that some of the documents included may be the work of third parties rather than of the Department; and a further problem is that some usages by the depart may refer to the term "Republic of Ireland" as part of another name, such as "Republic of Ireland Football team".

So yes, of course, the raw numbers need to be treated with caution, and it was never my intention for those numbers to be treated as gospel.

However, regardless of the numbers, the substantive point still stands: that "Republic of Ireland" has been repeatedly used by govt departments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Research and Google books

I seriously recommend doing proper research in google books before you make sweeping statements Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And I recommend posting your evidence to the AFD debate, where it may have some relevance.

Per my comment there, when you create an article, there is a clear warning above the edit box: "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references may quickly be deleted". Which part of that sentence was unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should say above about being "unnecessarily reactive" as thats exactly what you've done. I find your tone very rude and condescending to a simple suggestion to try to be a little more broader in searching for sources before making a judgment based on a single search in an unrelated search engine. The article was created when I was very unfamiliar with how the referencing worked when I was a newbie. I doubt you would have seen the nomination if you didn't spend time watching KittyBrewsters talk page. I've just spent time adding reliable sources and if I was "lazy" I certainly wouldn't have created or referenced the article. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm usually a pussy cat, but I responded in the tone in which you wrote to me. If you don't like the tone of my reply, don't write to me in a rude and condescending manner.

The crucial point that you seem to have missed is that per WP:V, the burden of evidence lies with the person who created the article, and you failed to provide that evidence. You may well have been new to WP and unfamiliar with the rules when you created the article, but your post here and at AFD was to blame me for not second-guessing your research sources ... and that's simply silly. Other editors cannot be expected to read your mind.

As to the sources you have used, the question is whether the FCT received substantial coverage there. Brief mentions don't establish notability, so those sources need to examined before I'd change my recommendation at AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If the nominator had asked me to present a source or given me a chance to assert notability first I would have gladly done so. Its the rushing to afd and commenting on a topic they are unfamiliar with without conducting a fuller research thats what I objected to. Fine stay with your delete but the affiliation with the UN's work on sustianable development, its consistent meetings with international organsiations and national significance in policy in the country leave me little doubt that the article will be kept as notability has been asserted. I'd imagine a great deal exists on paper sources too in newsapers and journals etc in Barbados. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the way AFD works: articles don't need to be assessed by specialists in the subject, because if adequate sources are available a non-specialist can assess notability. If specialist info is needed, the burden of evidence lies with the person who added the material. You were notified of the AFD, and have the chance to present that evidence if you want to.

Note, though, that it's not relevant whether the cause is a worthy one (this does sound like good work to me, but that's not the point here). The FCT could have held thousands of high-level meetings with the UN, but what matters is whether it meets the notability criteria in WP:N or WP:CORP. So far, the results of the Google Books search don't establish that notability in my eyes, because most of what I have seen so far is trivial (apart from 4 paras in one book, which isn't much), and the rest seems to be coverage by the FCT's partners in the UN etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well there seems to be far more coverage than 4 hits, just need to google search its current name -I count 602,000 google hits. As it stands the article on the Caribbean group is a much better article than the main global group Counterpart International of which it is a branch of! It always looked like a notable subject otherwise I wouldn't have started it, just needed expansion and referencing as do several hundred thousand of our other articles. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of page revision from public view

Hello! Is there a way to delete a page revision so it cannot be viewed? This one has the home address of a controversial subject.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sallicio!

Good work spotting that. I have deleted the revision, but it really needs to be oversighted. May I leave it to you to file the oversight request at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight? The data you will need is: "Salvatore Rivieri" (revision#: 280116718).

Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Specifically, for lightning-quick deletion of information that could be harmful; non-specifically, for being an all-around great admin!It's me...Sallicio!$\color {Red}\oplus$ 02:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

and yes you can leave it to me!--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Much appreciated :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

stabbing ppl in their sleep...?

that supposed to be funny? personally i find it offensive. 79.75.163.191 (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir Ralph Gore, 4th Baronet

Hi, hi and hi :-) ... apparently because of some moves you and User:Vintagekits did two years ago, the first version of the article Sir Ralph Gore, 4th Baronet has been lost (see http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Sir_Ralph_Gore,_4th_Baronet&action=history). Please could you take a look into the deleted versions of the article and restore the missing part of the history. Thanks and may always sufficient water be under your keel :-)

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, I think. Please tell me if it looks wrong

And mercifully it has always been someone else who has been at the helm when my keel has hit rocks, so with your good wishes I hope it will stay that way! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah now it looks fine. I believe it was deleted when a redirect was overwritten ... Thanks again and to render me more precisely: may always sufficient water be under your keel and someone else at the helm (at collisions)! :-)

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 07:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Psychics

Say, if you can find the time BHG, I would very much like to have your input (especially with regard to my alternative proposal) in the CFD for renaming Category:Psychics. Best, Cgingold (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. I had been thinking about that one, and your reminder prompted me to make this contribution. We're taking opposite views again, so the normal state of play is resumed after some uncharacteristic outbreak of agreement! <grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of reinforcing your view of this matter, I must say that I heartily disagree with your overly pessimistic characterization of our relationship, BHG. Surely we find ourselves happily in agreement as often as the opposite! :)

In any event, I was hoping that you would respond directly to my arguments in behalf of my alternative proposal, rather than confining yourself to demolishing the "official" proposal -- especially since that proposal is already laying in rubble, having been met with disapproval from all sides. So I hope you'll give serious consideration to my remarks -- and perhaps even a grudging nod of support. Cgingold (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I have noted in a further reply there, I don't think that your alternative proposal is any better, because it still selects "psychic" as a term to be problematised in a way which we don't do for other belief systems. I think that DGG has it right: if people accept that psychic powers exist, then term causes no problems; but if they think it's a load of nonsense, they can read it as "practitioner of nonsense". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

PS Sorry for not replying to the other part of your comment. Yes, you're right -- we do agree more often than not, but when we disagree we seem to do so quite fundamentally, and I thoroughly enjoy those disagreements because we get to explore the issues very thoroughly in a completely non-rancorous manner. I wish that all disagreements could be debated in such a constructive way as the differences you and I have on categories!

Peace :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Bairbre De Brún

Le do thoil, please stop changing the subject on the politician page to 'from Northern Ireland'. De Brún is in fact from your neck of the woods, so the category is "Ireland". Thanks!--Theosony (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bairbre De Brún was elected to the European Parliament for the Northern Ireland constituency, and therefore belongs in Category:Members of the European Parliament from Northern Ireland, along with other MEPs elected for that constituency, such as John Hume, Jim Allister, Jim Nicholson et al. She was sent to the EP from that NI constituency, not from any other.

Of course, she is personally from Dublin, which is why she is correctly categorised in Category:People from Dublin (city); but the category European parliament reflects her constituency, not her place of birth.

I think, though, that for clarity the category should be renamed as MEPs for Northern Ireland, to avoid this confusion about its purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Better to say that in the first place and to properly explain than to go on and on and on, yeah?--Theosony (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the category was clear from the outset, but you chose to focus on one interpretation of its name rather than looking at its usage or how it was parented or how similar categories are used. I hoped to avoid the need for a CFD, but in the end it became the only way to stop you from miscategorising her. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Province categories

Does two against one really make a consensus? Mejor Los Indios (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to appeal the deletion, go to WP:DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Is that a no? Mejor Los Indios (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends what the question was. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

PS it may be relevant to read Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus, which says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I reckon you know what the question was. So it boils down to who has the stronger argument? What led you to think that was you? Mejor Los Indios (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't play guessing games. If you have a question, spell it out, or stay off my talk page.

If you are talking about the CFD debate, consensus is asssessed by the closing admin. I accept that decision, but if you don't, then go to WP:DRV. Either way, stop posting your silly messages here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to guess anything. My very first sentence in this section was: "Does two against one really make a consensus?" Spelled out very clearly, I thought. Thanks for explaining how consensus is assessed at a CFD, and for the heads-up about the SFD. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it not best, as an editor of some notability, to answer the simple question first served?--Theosony (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on your statements

Hi BHG, Peace :-) I've read your latest statement on the RoI/Ireland debate and since there doesn't appear to be anywhere else to discuss these things, I hope it's OK to point some things out here in a non-confrontational way.

• You pointed out that the phrase "Republic of Ireland" is used in the Irish Statute Book. That is correct - but you'll find it's correctly used as a description, not as a name. So there's nothing wrong with it's usage in this context. (They state that "Ireland refers to the Republic of Ireland". Much the same as saying the "John Does refers to the solicitor")
• A good number (but in fairness, not all) of your examples also use the phrase correctly (like above) as a description and not as a name.
• Many of your links point to older content.
• Many government departments reviewed their usage of the term between 2007/2008. If you check you'll find that your links refer to older documents dating before 2007, or are referring to other documents pre-2007. Some departments are slower than others e.g. the GRO changed their website only last month!
• As to our previous discussion on "Elections in Ireland", can I point you to Elections in the UK where the same argument could be used, but that the modern meaning is given priority with links to historic elections. This approach takes into consideration that most people searching for "UK" or "United Kingdom" are searching for the modern/current meaning of the term, and not the historic meaning.

--HighKing (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you have misread things.

Name/Description

See article II, (1)(b) ( b ) of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997. It says

“ The term "Ireland" means the Republic of Ireland and the term "Irish" has a corresponding meaning. ”

In other words, the precise name in use is the "Republic of Ireland", which for the purpose of this act is shortened to "Ireland".

Look also, for example, at some of the many documents on the Dept of Social and Family Affairs website which unambiguously use "Republic of Ireland as a name:

• Payment Dates for Pension Recipients outside the Republic of Ireland
• When and how do I apply? "within the Republic of Ireland" … "your Birth Certificate (if born outside Republic of Ireland)" … "were born outside Republic of Ireland"
• and dozens of others, all repeatedly calling the state "The Republic of Ireland"

When?

Some of the links may indeed point to content predating 2007. But it is not wikipedia's purpose to rename everything to suit the current use of particular government ministers. The article "Republic of Ireland" covers the period since 1922, and the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 has been inm force for over 60 years, in which time the name "Republic of Ireland" has been widely used. There is no guarantee that the current government's reported dislike of the phrase will be shared by its successor.

Elections in the UK

Please look again at the article Elections in the United Kingdom. It does not cover the period before the establishment of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. The title "United Kingdom" is also unambiguous, because it clearly refers to a political entity which has at all times been a sovereign state. There is no question of "United Kingdom" having an alternative meaning of a geographical area which precedes the establishment of the state, or of an earlier state, so "Elections in the United Kingdom" clearly refers to elections held within the territory at that time of the United Kingdom. The same does not apply to the word "Ireland", which is why the phrase "Elections in Ireland" is ambiguous: an election Omagh was has always been Ireland, but five editors have actually supported the astonishing proposition that "When Ireland was partitioned under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, Omagh ceased to be a town in Ireland. Where else is Omagh? In asia?

I'm afraid that this is the part of the anti-"Republic of Ireland" argument which saddens me most: the attempt to deny that there is any ambiguity. I'm delighted that you have the sense not to follow Domer48 down the bizarre path of refusing to either accept or deny that "Ireland" is both the name of the 26-county state and of the simultaneously-existing 32-county island, and also of and that this creates ambiguity.

That ambiguity is the reason why the government of Ireland, amongst many other bodies, has repeatedly used the name "Republic of Ireland" for the state, in contexts where ambiguity arises. Naturally, that doesn't apply in some fields: in international bodies, the only seat for "Ireland" is occupied by the representative of the Dublin govt, so no ambiguity arises. But when the Dept of Social Welfare or other govt bodies need a simple a and clear way of specifying which part of the island they are referring to, they call it the "Republic of Ireland". It's simple, it works, it's clear and it's unambiguous. Why on earth are some editors going through such bizarre contortions to deny that the distinction is needed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi BHG, thanks for taking the time for a comprehensive response. Always fun, although it would be nice if there was a hint of acknowledgement of some of the points I raise (or even agreement). Anyway...

• It's odd/strange/mind boggling/bizarre that you find The term "Ireland" means the Republic of Ireland and the term "Irish" has a corresponding meaning. to mean that opposite of what I read into it. To me, that states that the "name" in use is "Ireland", and the description of "Republic of Ireland" is by way of clarification. Now way and it most certainly does not mean that "Ireland" is being used as a shortcut for "Republic of Ireland" as you've stated. That's just wrong and you are plainly misinterpreting this section.
• Yup - you're correct with the other examples on the Dept. of Social Welfare, etc. But I predict they'll catch up "real soon". Thanks for pointing them out.
• The point about pre2007 is an important point. It shows that changes were made in recognition of an error (and will continue to be made). You could at least acknowledge that rather than pretend it doesn't/isn't happening. As to your point about "Republic of Ireland" being in use for decades - I've no problem with an article on the term - it's history, how it came about, UK usage, falling out of favour, etc. But don't mix this up with being the same thing as where the article on "Ireland" the state should reside.
• The point about Elections in the United Kingdom was made because it is primarily about the present day (modern) meaning of the term, which is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You state that "There is no question of "United Kingdom" having an alternative meaning of a geographical area which precedes the establishment of the state", but that's wrong. The geographical area at one time excluded Ireland (United Kingdom of Great Britain), included Ireland (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), and presently includes part of Ireland (I'm referring to the island here). An election in Omagh is an election in the UK, not Ireland. That's the modern meaning, and the most common look-up.
• I was one of the 5 editors that Endorsed the statement about Omagh no longer being a town in Ireland, and I still endorse it. Omagh is in the UK. The context of the statement was political because you mentioned partition, therefore the meaning of Ireland cannot be the island. So I'm more surprised at the 13 editors who opposed the statement.  :-)
• Your final point - that the government uses "Republic of Ireland" as a name is false in nearly all cases (Dept. of Social Welfare accepted, and other examples I'm sure, but mostly false). The government of Ireland is always careful to use the description by way of clarification and disambiguation (and getting more careful and accurate as we go on).
• Finally, I don't believe that enough weight is being given to the fact that within the UK, the Republic of Ireland is the official name of our state. So it is confusing to use the same term as a disambiguating term as well because it leads to many people believing that Ireland has an perfectly acceptable alternative name. Which I believe has happened here...

Once again, peace. I accept we see things differently. --HighKing (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on Problem 2.2

In a similar vein, I wonder if you could elaborate on your opposition on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRockpocket (Problem 2.2). On the event that Problem 1 was resolved in the manner that this problem becomes relevant, what would you propose the article about the island be named? Rockpocket 19:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The only clear, unambiguous and non-contrived name for the 26-county state is "Republic of Ireland". The logical contortions of those who oppose that name are bewildering, but if they get their way, then result will be an almighty mess … and I'm not interested in tweaking the nature of that mess.

Similarly, it makes no sense for the article on the island and its history before 1922 to be called Ireland (island). That name conveys a solely geographical article, and that's not what that article contains -- as well as geography, it also covers the history of the Irish nation as a whole, as well as its people. The mess is described quite well at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyOne Night In Hackney.

To be honest, this whole exercise is a bit silly. There are pages full of logical contortions, as some editors try to deny that twp things with the same name is ambiguous, and some editors taking such bizarre and daft positions as Omagh not being in Ireland, and even one who believes that it was untrue to say in 1798 that "Lough Neagh is a lake in Ireland". (Sure, it was in Mongolia until Christy Ring whacked it over here with a mighty blow)

And for what? What's all this standing-on-heads about? That why I made my elephant in the room suggestion. I'd like people to explain in their own words why exactly they feel so strongly about this issue that we have so many assertions of the whiteness of black, and such widespread disdain for the practical consequences of this move for disambiguating hundreds of articles and thousands of categories. Is it because some Republicans dislike anything which acknowledges the existence of a 26-county Republic? Or was Kittybrewster onto something here? I can only speculate, and I don't like doing that, because very bad practice to attribute motives to other people by guesswork. So it would help enormously if editors could explain this in their own words. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good post. I agree that this process is silly, if for no other reason than privileging the opinions of a marginal group of politically polarised ideologues (on both sides obviously ;0). There is not one English-speaker who is confused by the terms "united Ireland" and "all Ireland", and I seriously doubt there are many English speakers who'd be familiar with this use of the word "description" without also being familiar with the Irish constitution. But I bet there are loads who'd be confused by the assertion that Belfast is not in Ireland. In reality, the linguistic part of our brain organises semantic hierarchies (less obvious if you only know languages with 10000+ vocab), in which Ireland (island) is top and Ireland (state) is below. (c/f fr:Pomme and fr:Pomme de terre, despite the fact potatoes are grown more than apples). But meh, fat chance of getting anyone obsessed enough to matter to put aside legalistic fictions and realise this. The good thing is that for normal users it doesn't matter beyond the tedious burden of piping [[Ireland (island)|Ireland]] instead of just writing Ireland, and if they're all happy and life on wiki can proceed in a more harmonious manner, it'll be worth it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish it was that easy :(

What we will have then is editors arguing that a phrase like "corporate taxation in the Republic of Ireland" is an unacceptable use of the hateful term, so first it will be piped to [[Ireland (state)|Republic of Ireland]] and then it will be changed to [[Ireland (state)|Ireland]]. Then there'll be an edit war and blocks and bans, and an attempt to revise WP:IMOS#Use_of_.27Republic_of_Ireland.27_and_.27Ireland.27_for_the_Irish_state to outlaw use of the term "Republic of Ireland" ... and we'll have this same issue back at arbcom again to try to unravel the mess.

My own interest in this is not ideological, but practical: I want a naming convention that works, unambiguously. Nobody has offered any workable alternative to "Republic of Ireland", and those determined to excise that phrase seem to be entirely unconcerned about the confusion which this will cause for readers. The absurdities advanced in pursuit of this are manifested through the WP:IECOLL process, with hilarities such as two editors who don't believe that the Republic of Ireland act 1948 is still in force. This is a never-never land :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The really 'least whackiest' and most simple solutions is to have Ireland and island of Ireland. There are no ugly pipings involved, and the string "island of Ireland" can be quite versatile in its usage. I have thought and thought about this for weeks, and the ugly brackets don't do the trick either. Maybe worth a ponder. PurpleA (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it works. The simple phrase "In 1791, Humbert landed in [[Ireland]]" would point to an article on a state which only came into existence 120 years later. So it would need to be "In 1791, Humbert landed in [[Island of Ireland|Ireland]]" ... but apart the problem of Ireland's history as a nation before 1922 being reduced to the status of an island, mistanen links like that will be hard to detect by using Special:WhatLinksHere, because they will be pointing to an article rather than a dab page an will be jumbled up in all the links which should point to the state. As ONIH points out, why create a situation where a phrase like "X was born in [[Ireland]]" may be completely wrong? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for response to this, and only one point to make. France had, was it four Republics, and that problem doesn't arise with that article. And to split hairs further, Ireland was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801 to 1922, politically speaking that is. So it is just about impossible to be accurate on this count. PurpleA (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

France had several Empires and a monarchy or two as well, but you miss the crucial difference: France was not partitioned. So "in France in <<year>>" is always an unambiguous statement. The same does not apply to Ireland since partition was imposed in 1920/21, and that's the core of the problem, because "Cushendall is in Ireland", but since 1921 "Cushendall is not in Ireland". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I find your reasoning somewhat disheartening, BHG. I don't like this process any more than you do, but it was put in place by an Arbcom sanctioned panel of moderators. They gave us three specific problems to consider, and that is what my proposals addressed. You are opposing not because you disagree with the solution, but because you refuse to entertain the question. We now have people refusing to entertain either option, which means either we continue this discussion ad infinitum or else at some point some people are going to have to consider the unthinkable. If you are not interested in "tweaking the nature of that mess" then I would much prefer you simply avoid commenting, rather than scupper an attempt to decide what to do on the very real possibility that it could happen. Intransigence, being it ideologically or practically minded, is the biggest barrier to resolution, in my opinion. Rockpocket 23:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rock, I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm astonished by your logic. I want a solution which works, and I see only one solution that actually works by providing a clear, simple and unambiguous name for the article on the state.

What astonishes me is that you are normally a very practical editor, but you don't address that question of what works. Why? Is it more important to satisfy a vocal group of editors than to ensure that Ireland-related articles can be unambiguously cross-linked without needing an instruction manual? If insisting on a practical solution is a mark of intransigence, then we really are in very big trouble. Are you really tryting to tell me that arbcom will cheesed off if we choose a messy solution which half-satisfies a few editors who believe that Omagh is not in Ireland, rather than one which actually works?

So I'll respond in kind. If your only interest is in calming a dispute rather than in producing a workable solution, why don't you withdraw your proposal rather than asking for to silence those who disagree with you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

BHG, your perspective is highly-clued and very reasonable, and frankly your voice is badly needed (if only to increase the proportion of sense being inputted). I don't agree with Rockpocket that highly-motivated but marginal ideologues should be given such power (though I accept that they are being given such), esp. as I think your rather apocalyptic vision of what will happen is probably accurate ... same users will just move on to new fights anyway. I very much hope the mini-panel will given due weight to good arguments rather than subordinating them to numerical strength. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks, Deacon! That's very kind of you. It looks, though, like I will be public enemy number 1 for daring to try to focus this on practicalities. I was minded at the start to sit out his process, but now that I'm involved I reckon I might as well press the case.

In the meantime, however, the moderators of the WP:IECOLL are notable for their absence. I really do sympathise with them, because the only absolutely-guaranteed outcome of this process is that their name will be mud in amongst some editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think my proposal lacks practicality? There is no reason whatsoever that the title of the article could be at Ireland (state) and any in text reference to it could either be [[Ireland (state)|Ireland]] or [[Ireland (state)|Republic of Ireland]] (depending on whether there was a reasonable expectation of island/state ambiguity). Yes, it requires piping, but thats hardly extraordinary. Obviously a practical solution is important, but so is one that has a consensus of support. I can assure you my interest is in producing a workable, policy compliant solution that is acceptable to a wide range of Wikipedians. I also think dismissing a point of view that one doesn't necessarily agree with as being held by "marginal ideologues" is unhelpful. There are ideologues involves in the discussion (on both sides) but there are also reasonable editors who hold opposing views. Rockpocket 00:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rock, are you really saying that the outcome of this process will be that all the editors who bare mortally offended by calling the state "Republic of Ireland" will be happy to continue to use "Republic of Ireland" in article text and category names and in the name of "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" articles, and that they will think it's absolutely fine to go from [[Republic of Ireland]] to [[Ireland (state)|Republic of Ireland]]? This doesn't add up: if "Republic of Ireland" is offensive enough to require the renaming of the head article, do you really believe that the editors concerned will be completely unoffended by its use in text and the names of other articles? Sorry, but this doesn't compute, and nor does it tally with the history of disputes in this area.

I'm afraid that all your solution does is to displace the problem to countless mini-disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For me, the simple question is why do people insist that "Republic of Ireland" the the only acceptable disambiguator? Lots of the anti-RoI crowd agree that disambiguation is required, and I guess would agree to use a different term other than the one that confuses and blurs the issue between a name and a description. It's all very well polarizing the anti-RoI brigage, but there is an overwhelming polarization and emotional/illogical attachment to the name enshrined in British law. Putting aside, for one moment, people's preferences for the disambiguation term to be used. If we asked a simple question - should articles have the ability to disambiguate between the island, and the political sub-divisions, the answer would be overwhelmingly "Yes". Given the agreement therefore, that a term must be found, and that RoI is not acceptable, would it not be more productive to explore alternatives? --HighKing (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to hear of any alternatives, but I have yet to see anything else proposed that ticks all the necessary boxes: it should be plain English (no brackets), and widely recognisable without requiring explanation. The only one I can see is "Southern Ireland", and if that was on the table I would mount my own ideological high horse and howl about a British-imposed name (which is just what I do when that name is used ny English people, an all-too-frequent occurrence).

In the absence of any other suggestion, why is it so deeply awful to use the state's legal description rather than something contrived which has no basis in Irish law? I'm really really puzzled why that description causes deep offense, but the description "Ireland (state)" doesn't. What on earth bis this really about? Are you a monarchist, or you dislike "Republic" being used other than for a 32-county Republic, or what? I'm genuinely puzzled, so I'd really like someone to spell this out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi BHG. Discussions like these would go much smoother and be more open if editors quit trying to personalize the discussion with name-calling and labelling. But to answer your query, I'm not a monarchist and I'm not a republican. I'm not anything except Irish and I like things to be factual, accurate, and referencable.

In a nutshell, the problem I have with using "Republic of Ireland" is that it is being misused as a Name in lots of places, and not as a description. That wouldn't be too much of a problem on it's own - except in the UK it actually *is* the official name. This, very simply, leads to confusion. British people are correct to use it as a name, because that is what Ireland is called (legally) in their country. And if Wikipedia adopts RoI as a name, it's going to lead to more confusion as people are pulled up short and told "Hey, that's not the name", and they reply "But it's used all over Wikipedia, and it's used in British newspapers, etc". For accuracy, I'd prefer a different disambiguator and I'm not too fussed over what it is to be honest. That said, I'd also not be too fussed if "Republic of Ireland" was used correctly - like the way the legal documents state that "Ireland refers to the Republic of Ireland" or some such. So long as usage is consistent and clear and not confusing. --HighKing (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As Highking says, with the possible exception of Domer and a few others, most people accept disambiguation of some form is required. Therefore there will need to be some piped term for disambiguation. I don't know what specific anti-RoI editors might prefer, but I'm willing to bet that even they would concede that in certain circumstances RoI would perhaps be grammatically most suitable. In others Ireland, the state, might be preferable. There are other variations. The point is that there are many ways to skin a cat. I don't accept that RoI is inherently the only practical disambiguator, neither do I accept that it is absolutely verboten. When we try and enforce a black or white solution people very quickly retreat to their corners. I believe a nuanced solution is both possible and practical. This is what I mean by compromise.

As for why people find ROI offensive. I would suggest its for exactly the same reason you find "Southern Ireland" offensive, but I couldn't care less about either term. You presumably infer some sort of diminishment implied in the term, based on your experience of historical or geopolitical usage. If you get riled by that, I find it odd how you fail to appreciate that a different individual could feel the same things towards a different term. Words are words, they carry only what value you give them. Rockpocket 01:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up my thoughts also. Thanks Rockpocket. --HighKing (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "Southern Ireland" is that it was the name of a legal fiction which was imposed by outsiders, and has never been used by the Irish state. "Republic of Ireland" was devised by the Oireachtas, and repeatedly used for over 60 years by the Oireachtas, by the Irish government and state-sponsored bodies and in Irish business and society. It doesn't seem to have led to a boycott of the Republic of Ireland national football team.

But you are missing the core of my point. If "Republic of Ireland" is too offensive to use as the name of the head article, why is it any less offensive to use it in the name of "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" articles or in article text? I'm not insisting that it be used everywhere, and you helpfully remind us that there are some situations where it can be avoided. But the issue is not whether you think it shouldn't be "absolutely verboten", it's that the editors you are trying to pacify believe that it should be, and a significant number of them give not a whit for disambiguation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) This puzzled me too. When I was in Dublin I never got the sense that "Republic of Ireland" was controversial, as you heard it all the time; only on wikipedia have I found out the term aroused passions, mainly from people in the north. Presumably this is an issue because "Republic of Ireland" at some point was seen as de-legitimsing the state's moral claim of sovereignty over the whole island. A good comparison I suppose would be the "official" titles used by the Korean governments, though the populaces of both countries aren't motivated enough to argue North Korea and South Korea should be moved to Korea (northern state) and Korea (southern state) based on inflating the relevance of some concocted counter-intuitive distinction between "official name" and "official description" (not to mention the People's Republic of China which, unlike RoI, is almost never called by its "description" and would not be confused with Taiwan even if it was located at China!). Likewise, referring to Northern Ireland as "Ulster" or claiming Northern Ireland is a legitimate enough entity to have a flag arouses similar resentment. I'm presuming too that the other lot probably think of it like that, which is why they like to push it. These are my guesses at any rate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be right that it's a Northern thing, but Mooretwin's statement includes evidence of a Sinn Fein MLA objecting to the 26-county state calling itself "Ireland".[3] So it seems that the only solution to satisfy all these voices will be to choose a name which excludes both the words "Republic" and "Ireland". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Well "Of" would be quick enough to type. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Fein and Extreme Unionists don't like the state calling itself Ireland. Sinn Fein prefer the "Free State", because Ireland is divided at the moment, and Unionists like to use "the South" because they resent Ireland using the name. A sort of notion of a copyright issue. I visit Dublin quite often, at least once a year, and I can tell you quite emphatically that the term "Republic of Ireland" is used very sparingly there. I do hear it sometimes being referred to as "the Republic", but not the ROI, and that's purely for disambiguation purposes when speaking vis a vis Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is usually referred to as "the North". Now we don't call Northern Ireland "the North", here at Wikipedia. It's an important point. PurpleA (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sparingly is make-believe. Irish people, like everyone else in the world, use "Ireland" ambiguously and use Republic of Ireland when they need to distinguish. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of historical precedent for why one might infer pejorative connotations from the the term Republic of Ireland. In 1963 the Irish Department of Education issued guidelines on correct geographic terminology insisting on "Ireland" for the state, and explicitly noting "Republic of Ireland" should be avoided. This was because ROI had started to be heavily promoted by the British at that time in an effort to popularize it as the main name of the state. Up until 1999, the UK was the only country in the international community to insist on referring to the state as the "Republic of Ireland", rather than "Ireland" which is what the state self identified as. Given the history, is it really surprising to you that some Irish people may consider RoI as a non-neutral choice of disambiguator? It may have not started out that way, but recent history has clearly charged "ROI" as another British imposition, in the same spirit as "Southern Ireland".

With regards to "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" articles, it could be resolved in "Foo in Ireland (state)". I already mentioned the various options that could be used in text, depending on context. My goal is not to pacify editors with extreme positions. Compromise works both ways, in return for appreciating the the primary disambiguator need not be RoI, editors must also appreciate that RoI is not a toxic term that can never be used. I honestly think you are painting all of the so-called "anti-ROI" brigade with an unnecessarily broad stroke, some of them are very reasonable you know. Jesus, I'm beginning to feel a bit like George Mitchell here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockpocket (talk • contribs)

Well, in fairness, the United Kingdom was the only state other than RoI to possess territory in Ireland, so it had reason beyond a rumbling imperialist belly. Given the attitude of the UK to imperialism c. 1963, it'd be surprising if there was anything sinister behind this, though I'm not surprised if this generated paranoia. Anyways, that doesn't make creating anarchy to appease an extreme but active fringe element seem any more respectable. We are after all supposed to be a cluocracy, though in practice I know that is only a distant dream. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Except when you note that the country is still legally named "Republic of Ireland" in the UK, it's not at all surprising why RoI isn't regarded as POV neutral. Names are important. As stated on the British Governments own PCGN home page, Confucius replied: “If the names are not correct, if they do not match realities, language has no object. If language is without an object, action becomes impossible - and therefore all human affairs disintegrate and their management becomes pointless and impossible. Hence, the very first task of a true statesman is to rectify the names.” --HighKing (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket's suggestion of "Foo in Ireland (state)" is itself ambiguous, because there have been several states in Ireland. The Lordship of Ireland, the Kingdom of Ireland, the sadly-unrecognised Irish Republic, plus the other short-lived insurrectionary states. It is is also unclear to readers because construct of "Ireland (state)" is a novel one not used elsewhere. We are constructing wikipedia for benefit of readers, not editors, and WP:DAB is very clear about the first choice for disambiguation: "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used." The suggestion of a parenthetical disambiguator is a lower option.

HighKing's quote about "Republic of Ireland" not matching realities is inapplicable here. Ireland is a Republic, by any reasonable definition of the term. I think that some of the opposition to the term comes from a desire in some quarters to reserve that name for a 32-county republic, which is a perfectly legitimate political position, but not relevant to the decisions being made here.

Nor is the phrase "Republic of Ireland" a British invention or British imposition. It is taken directly from an Act of the Oireachtas which itself uses exactly that title, and as I have already shown it is a name widely used by the Irish government itself. I quite agree that it is disgraceful that for decades the British government refused to call the Irish state by its own chosen name, especially because there was (and is) no ambiguity issue in international relations: bloody-minded arrogance as part of a long pattern.

And that, I think, is what this comes down to. The description "Republic of Ireland" is routinely used as a name both in Ireland and elsewhere, without causing fuss ... but its use on wikipedia is being objected to because it was also used by the UK in a malevolent way. This seems to me to be a case of still allowing the UK to dictate the agenda, by insisting on not doing something that the UK approves of. We are in danger here of rejecting the most simple, most widely-used, Oireachtas-approved solution simply because it was also used by our historic enemies, which seems to me to be perverse. Isn't it better to ignore what the Brits want and just take the best solution? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats a convincing argument and there is not much that you say I would disagree with personally. However, you chastised me earlier for not being practical. Here is the practical reality: We were asked by ArbCom to form a consensus on the naming issue and I proposed a process - perhaps the only process - that has any chance of achieving that with the current body of participants. Irrespective of how much you believe your proposal is the only viable solution, the practical reality is that there is not currently a consensus of support for it. Some suggest that is because of an active, extreme fringe. I say there are indeed some of those individuals, but there are also rational editors who simply differ in opinion, and labeling all of those editors "extremists" borders on an ad hominem argument. But that is somewhat beside the point, if we are to form a consensus around your proposal one of two things have to happen: Either we have to convince those who disagree of the merits of your argument, or else you change the body of participants. The former isn't likely to happen, so I believe you we are left with the latter. In practical terms, that means either increasing participation, thereby demonstrating those who disagree with you are indeed a fringe view, or else excusing those that disagree from the decision process. Thats about as practical as it gets, so how would you propose we go forward? Rockpocket 17:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem at all with RockPocket's suggestion of "Foo in Ireland (state)" as well as having articles about the "Kingdom of Ireland", etc. The context of each article would make it clear what is being referred to. A bit like "Elections in Ireland (state)" don't you think?

And I'd hate to think I'm being misquoted deliberately - I don't recall saying anything about not matching realities, or saying that "Republic of Ireland" is a British invention, or that some of my objection comes down to wanting to reserve Ireland for a 32-county republic. As I've stated previously, sometimes these conversations get less heated and are more civil if a less personalised name-calling or labelling approach is taken by everyone involved...

The last point you raise is interesting and partly true - that "Republic of Ireland" is routinely used as a name both in Ireland and elsewhere. Partly true because it is difficult to quantify what you mean by routinely, but I would argue that it is not the most commonly used term by a long shot, and may also be used perfectly well as a description in the right context. Also, you state it is an Oireachtas-approved solution. It most certainly is not - I'll throw down the gauntlet of "Prove It!".

Also, I appreciate the points you make about ignoring what the Brits want and just take the best solution - but here our opinions differ. I believe the best solution needs as it's starting point the correct name recognized within Ireland and internationally. Using "Republic of Ireland", arguably uses the correct name recognized within the UK, and is therefore not acceptable as a solution...

I'll say again. Compromise is required. Ireland is not acceptable. Republic of Ireland is not acceptable. Rule both of these out. --HighKing (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

High-King, do you actually think that "British" people (who are not also Irish) actually care? Sure, if you asked the people at the Foreign Office in the inter-war period you'd probably have heard a bunch of imperialist crap, but I'm pretty sure that if the English people voted on the matter today the emerald isle would regain its political unity. At the very least, you must recognise that when people in the UK (and the USA!) use the term "Republic of Ireland" or "southern Ireland", they are only innocently trying to solve the problem of terminological ambiguity wikipedia currently solves. The same "British" people who use "Republic of Ireland" will never call the Irish PM "RoI PM", but always "Irish PM". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of which would be incorrect, of course, and would likely been seen by some as another example of a British imposition ;) Rockpocket 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, wasn't thinking, meant "president". Force of habit. That word in any case always throws me because it's used in medieval Scotland for a hereditary ministerial figure translated as "Thanus" (to which we owe the name of those famous anti-PCs). ;) No British imposition meant though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I must correct you Deacon, people in the USA do not use the term 'Republic of Ireland', they almost always say 'Ireland'. By broad consensus Ireland the country re-established its entitlements back in 1922, and part of Ulster demurred and stayed with a group of countries entitled the UK. Ireland the nation is indeed represented by Ireland the state, and "it" should have ownership of the "Ireland page". PurpleA (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

People in the USA use the word Ireland to refer to the island, and in the negligible number of circumstances they'd need to distinguish use Republic of Ireland or some variants. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarly agree with that, as we wouldn't know how they are thinking at any particular time. They also use the proper name Ireland for the country, nation and state of that name. They don't carry any baggage in that regard. PurpleA (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really fussed whether you agree or not, I know already how "Ireland" is used there, and it's exactly as I described. Ireland is thought of primarily as a historical and modern nation, a cultural unit, not primarily as a geopolitical entity with frontiers along County Armagh (though irrespective of how widespread knowledge of such a partition is, it is also the name of this entity on the few occasions when it is referred to unambiguously). While it's unfortunate that willful eye-closing and politicising fantasy clearly steer the course of wiki debates on these matters, it doesn't actually alter the reality of usage. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

See my evidence below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

In reply to HighKing, this whole notion of inferring the meaning from the context is fraught with difficulty, because it assumes that the reader starts with a sophisticated understanding of the situation. That's simply not the case: Wikipedia is written for a general readership rather than specialists, and the reader may start with no background or contextual knowledge, or with hazy or incomplete knowledge. That's why inventing an obscure or ambiguous naming convention is such a bad idea -- it creates an hurdle to the reader. An article called "Elections in the Republic of Ireland" is clear in its scope, but an article called "elections in Ireland (state)" may have many different meanings, not just in relation to the many different states which have existed in the island of Ireland, but because that phrase may also be read as referring to the "state of the electoral process in Ireland" (borked if you listen to some commentators, fine by another POV). The result of an unclear or misleading title is that the reader has to open the article to discover what it is actually about.

It seems thoroughly perverse to remove a clear and unambiguous label without good reason. Do we have that reason here? No.

• Has the Oireachtas rejected this use of the "Republic of Ireland" as a name when disambiguation is required? No. On the contrary, the Oireachtas has used it in primary and in secondary legislation
• Is this usage avoided by govt departments? No, it's used in hundreds of documents produced by govt departments
• Does this usage cause outrage when used in Ireland? No, it's widely used in ordinary life when disambiguation is required, though usually abbreviated to "the Republic" (because "Ireland" is superfluous when used in a purely Irish context)
• Is this usage unknown elsewhere in the world? No, it's used when disambiguation is needed. See for example:
  1. the New York Times: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]
  2. Sydney Morning Herald: [14], [], []
  3. CNN 470 hits, about half of them are the football team
  4. Xinhua, the Chinese news agency: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]
  5. Jerusalem Post: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]

Your objection seem to come down to two reasons:

1. That in the ROI Act 1948 it is defined as a "description" rather than as a name
2. That the British govt used it for years in its silly diplomatic games

The first point about "description" seems to me to be rather scholastic: it's an interesting exercise to compare the distinction between a name and a description, but it's irrelevant here because we are not searching for the "official name", but for a widely-used alternative. (see WP:DAB). This one is widely used, both in Ireland and elsewhere.

The second point seems to be unnecessarily reactive. Why reject something widely used by Irish people just because it has also been used for mischief by our historic enemies. At a diplomatic level, the UK's usage was pure mischief, but there is also another more pragmatic usage as a disambiguator, when the need arises to distinguish between that part of Ireland still under British rule and the independent part. In popular English usage, "Southern Ireland" and "Eire" remain far too common, neither of which has ever been used as an English-language name or description of the Irish State by the Irish govt or Irish popular usage: can we agree that "Republic of Ireland" is a huge step forwards from those terms? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

BHG, despite your overindulgence of emote-speak, it's clear that we can get down to basic facts and agree/disagree as follows. You state that:

• the Oireachtas has used it in primary and in secondary legislation - no it hasn't. It has included the term, correctly, as a disambiguating descriptor. It has not included the term as a name, unlike your usage, and the usage of much of Wikipedia. I'm baffled as to why you continue to ignore the difference.
• it's used in hundreds of documents produced by govt departments - sure - most of which as (once again) a correct disambiguator, not as a primary term. We've both agreed that there are exceptions, but most of the exceptions predate 2007. Even the oft-quoted GRO Ireland website recently (as of March 2009) changed it's website to reflect "Ireland" as opposed to "Republic of Ireland".
• it's used when disambiguation is needed. Yes! Great! Sometimes we all agree that it's OK to use the term. Yippee! But it's not an ideal disambiguation term as I (and others) have patiently tried to explain. Disambiguation is required in a lot of cases. We all agree on that. We just seem to disagree on the preferred term is all...
• The second point seems to be unnecessarily reactive and can we agree that "Republic of Ireland" is a huge step forwards from those terms?. Maybe this is actually the distillation of both of our opinions.... This, at least, I believe we can completely disagree on. I believe it is a crucial reason to disallow the term as non-neutral POV - and it appears that you don't appear to grant it the same negative weight. Fair enough. I believe that I understand your reasoning and I respect that, and I also respect the considerable amount of time and effort you've put into gathering all the references and articulating your point of view - and while I respectfully acknowledge this, disagree. --HighKing (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, I'm glad that we have agreement on some things, but your phrase "overindulgence of emote-speak" is out-of-order. I was trying to address the central reason for your objection to use of he term, which is your POV that because the name has been used by the UK it is unacceptable. In addressing an emotional argument, emotive terms may need to be used, so pot-kettle-black. :(

The rest of this, though, is scholasticism as its worse. When the Oireachtas uses the phrase "Republic of Ireland" in legislation, you split it apart into "Republic of"+"ireland" say that "Republic of" is a "disambiguating descriptor" ... but that when wikipedia uses it, it's a name.

I'm sorry, HighKing, but that's my limit. These verbal gymnastics are straight out of Through the Looking-Glass:

“ When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less. ” — Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

Dialogue closed. I'm sorry, but I've had enough of this exercise in fantasy. Any further posts on this from you on the subject will be deleted from my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Ireland_.28the_sovereign_country.29_naming_issue. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had just seen it on my watchlist and gotten there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Scottish nationality

Thank you so much for your support on this issue. I have had people telling me over and over that there is no such thing. I was really starting to doubt myself. I think it is important that Dowding be recognised as a Scot, since he was born there. What do you think? Wallie (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should record him as a Scot, but I'm not persuaded that it is a good idea to subdivide the Category:Royal Air Force air marshals by each of the UK's constituent nations. Categories exist primarily to readers navigate between related articles, and the senior ranks of the RAF are mostly conveniently browsed as a whole rather than being broken up.

But as I noted at the CFD debate, I think it would be a good idea to a broader category of Scots who served in the RAF. It's just splitting the higher ranks that I think is a bad idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I was really trying to convey the fact that Hugh Dowding was a Scot. I think very few people would realise this. He is played by Lawrence Olivier in the Battle of Britain film, and is clearly miscast by Olivier - hardly Scottish! I did say that he was a Scottish Air Marshal rather than a British one. This was quickly, as you can imagine, reverted. :)Wallie (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy categories

If I could direct your attention to WP:PHILO. Please note the navigation bar organizes the task forces such that we could reasonably expect that every "philosophy" article in WP would be covered by at least one task force. Ideally, each article should be within at least one task force for subject area, one for major tradition, one for period. This set up had been discussed at WT:PHIL a long time ago. Since it was set up, it has proven to be a good system of organization.

The article space categories do not mirror this organizational system perfectly. In fact, articles in the philosophy department need a lot of help generally. I am now doing my part by looking at the categories. Obviously, my goal has been to put them into a category structure similar to the task force structure.

I think there has already been an enormous amount of planning, thought, and consideration by many people to make the task force structure possible. I think we can reasonably conclude that it can serve as a model for organizing the article space categories. Furthermore, the proposal was posted at WT:PHILO explicitly for half a month. If anyone had objected we would have heard something by now already either in response to the task force set up or the latest proposal consistent with it.

Please cooperate with the proposal in consideration of the project. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Template:Philosophy/Nav?

In any case, I'm not sure why you have posted this to me? Is this is in relation to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 1#Category:Feminist_philosophy?

If so, my question is where in the WP:PHILO structure you would include feminist thought? I'll happily consider any answer except "nowhere" :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Tweedsmuir succession box

BHG- Can I ask what it is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines#B. Years and dates that justifies your removal of the days from the succession box (and only that for the Combined Scottish Universities box, strangely). I read at the link you provided: "write full dates whenever it is possible to find such information for the whole chain of succession." Given that such information is available, and the succession box at Tweedsmuir's page doesn't seem to fall under any of the exceptional categories at the WP page, why do you remove it? I'd like to know as I've been working through the whole series of articles on Canadian governors general and there are a number of political succession boxes throughout. Tweedsmuir's will be out of synch if eiter it or all the others are not fixed. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

See part iv. of that section of the guideline:

“ iv. There are three categories of succession boxes which only need one year and no dates: electoral candidacies, awards, and sporting positions (in case of championships or tournaments). In those cases, write nothing but the year in question in the |years= parameter. ”

If you look at other articles on UK MPs, you'll see that only the year is used, except in cases where there were two general elections in that year (1910 and 1974) or where one of the links is to a by-election held in the same year as a general election, in which case the year alone would be ambiguous.

I read the comment about series as applying to succession boxes for the same office.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honset, I suspected that was the clause you were using; but, my interpretation of the word "candidacy" is the running for an office, not the occupation of one. In fact, the dictionary definition I have is: "the campaign of a candidate to be elected".

I don't mean to split hairs; I just went to some difficulty to research actual dates of elections for about a dozen articles so far, and I'm loathe to have to go back and undo it all! Is this rule for including years only (which, I assume, would necessitate the removal of the months you left behind) really set in stone? --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

These are guidelines, so they are flexible ... and not many things are set in stone on wikipedia. But guidelines are written to reflect actual practice, not the other way round, and if you check other MPS you'll find that the convention really is years only except for 1910 or 1974 or by-elections in the same year as a general election.

But adding the full dates for elections in succession boxes is a bad idea, because it adds clutter which makes it harder on a quick scan to see the important info, which is the year -- most MPs are elected at general elections, so the precise date doesn't matter, what matters is the event. The guideline is a little badly worded at that point, but the only way in which electoral candidacies enter into a succession box is if the candidate wins or retires, so despite the clumsy phrasing it can't be referring to anything else.

I'm sorry to be pointing this out to you after you went to so much trouble in good faith to add the detail, but you'll find that sooner or later they will be removed.

I hope this doesn't come across wrongly, but after checking your contribs I see that you are a relatively new editor, and I well recall how things like this used to really frustrate me when I first started editing. I once spent an hour linking all the major terms on a long disambiguation page, only to have it promptly reverted, and I was very miffed ... but I did eventually come to see why WP:MOSDAB is strict about that rule. So I hope that this little item doesn't put you off your good work! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've actually been editing here for some years; this is just a new account (as is explained on my user page). Regardless, there's so many guidelines and policies, I don't think one could ever possibly come across them all, no matter how many years they've been here; this was certainly one I'd never seen before. Ah well, I guess I'll have to fix the other pages to suit. Thanks for your guidance. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

Grateful for your kind comments and the award. Many more MPs to research and create pages for, so I'm keeping going all right. --Graham Lippiatt (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Blair Peach

I have an idea you could add a category to this article. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		for your signature here Kbdank71 14:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! It seemed too good an opportunity to miss. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:NYRepresentatives

Please see notice of proposed technical fix at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6#Template:NYRepresentatives.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. But per my comment at TFD, this doesn't resolve the size problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

ROI lead section

See also: Talk:Republic of Ireland § ROI in the lede

As you're an admin, I hope you might have a little bit of sense. I know how these disputes tend to get eighty percent idiots on each side :P Anyway, as you may know, I tried (and failed) to clean up the wording in the lead section of the ROI article by rewording what I feel is an unnecessary duplication of the presentation of facts; namely, this line:

The name of the state is "Ireland", while the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island.

Speaking totally from a stylistic point of view, everything before the comma is said in the first sentence already. However, I know the area of naming is very touchy. Which is why I'm appealing to you to see if you can find a neutral compromise to the two; as an admin, you should be able to help find a compromise; and I know that you know that the allegation of a British/Irish POV doesn't mean there actually is one. That said, I offered what I thought was a neutral compromise (includes the term ROI, which I think should be in the lead, but makes sure to emphasise it's a description) but it was lost in the whole discussion about alternate names for the countries in the Isles. What do you think of this as a first paragraph?

Ireland (Irish: Éire, Irish pronunciation: [ˈeːrʲə]) is an island country in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign republic occupies about five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned on 3 May 1921.[5] Thus, it is [sometimes/often] described as the "Republic of Ireland" [when there is a need to] to differentiate it from the island. It shares a land border with Northern Ireland to the north east, and is bordered by the Irish Sea to the east, St George's Channel to the south-east, the Celtic Sea to the south and by the Atlantic Ocean to the west and north.

The square brackets, of course indicate a choice between one or the two, or neither. I think that rehashing the naming debate in the lead section does a disservice to the rest of the article; we don't say anything about the culture (which Ireland has quite a bit, between Bono and knowing a good Eurovision song), for example. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Giano blocked, an argument about what to call Ireland… You see how much effort we go to to make you feel like you've never been away? Want me to go AFD an Arbuthnot to complete the set? – iridescent 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Iridiscent, you are a divil ;)

I didn't know Giano was blocked, but I try to give him a wide berth anyway: too much drama. But now that you pointed me in his direction, I couldn't resist a comment there. Giano is a great writer of articles, and is as entitled to his views on wiki-politics as anyone else is. But I do wish he would express his view in language less likely to accuse drama.

But one thing which really does seem to have changed in my time away is Vintagekits. I was keen to give him a final chance last year, although I was unsure how well it would work ... but he really does seem to be doing great work and avoiding conflicts. It's wonderful to see my pessimism was misplaced! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, thanks for your message. To be honest, both the current version and your proposed changes all seem pretty good to me. There are some elements I'd prefer in one version or the other, but all of them seem to me to be more than good enough.

I'm sorry to sound a little dismissive, because I don't want to appear to disparage your obvious concern for good prose and accuracy. But this is an area where there are a lot of strong views about different ways to approach the question, and I think that the current lead section has been relatively stable. My concern is that on issues like this, the best can sometimes be the enemy of the good, because the quest for improvement can inadvertently end up destabilising an existing consensus.

I know that you suggested this change in good faith, but I think that it might be better to leave this one be. There are many areas of wikipedia's coverage of Ireland which badly need expansion, and where there is unlikely to be controversy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

List of isms again

Do you remember when we first exchanged comments on the issue of the Category:Isms which ended up deleted (a while ago now)? Basically, I have come around your idea that organizing around the suffix "ism" is not the best way to organize things. However, I found that particular list very valuable, and I preserved it as List of belief systems for a while, and then moved it to List_of_philosophical_theories which is now under consideration for deletion. Perhaps its time has come, however I will miss it, so I have preserved it in my userspace for my uses.

I have always been very interested in this area. I have made many edits in the area of isms, theories, belief systems, movements, schools of thought, etcetera. I have been trying to develop the philosophy department in general. My idea is to make sure that every article which should be; is A) covered under the appropriate category in the Philosophy category tree, and B) has the philosophy banner on its talk page with the appropriate parameters. I have been organizing mainly on the talk side, with the banner parameters, with the idea that it will be very easy to use awb to work on categories in the main space after we make sure that things are best categorized on the talk side. Ideally, every philosophy article should have at least one a) field, b) tradition and c) era.

In the area of these "isms" I have found that they are all invariably describable as "theories." This is to say they all can be expressed in the form described in the article theory (mathematical logic) such that each one is a group of sentences {t1, t2,t3,t4,t5,...}, each one of which is believed to be true, and which explains something, etcetera. I find this is excellent in that it is the least that we can say for absolute sure (i.e. whether or not it is a "movement" involves a social judgment, whether or not it is a "belief system" depends on there being believers, etcetera). To identify something as a theory is to make an intellectual identification, not a social one. This permits for all kinds of things very generally, and this is good for the philosophy department.

I have further developed a few subcategories which I hope will allow us to tighten things up over time naturally and conveniently such as "metaphysical theories", "epistemological theories", "ethical theories", etcetera. Many articles are in more than one, but usually not more than three. The result has been a great tightening up and organizing of these articles. I would like to continue to tighten things up.

There is also a major division between "scientific" and "philosophical" theories. I thought this kind of distinction is important to make so as to make things clear as to what is considered a scientific theory and what is not. Invariably, theories which are not scientific, in that some of the "elementary theorems" are statements which cannot be empirically tested, can be thought of as "philosophical" in that those particular theorems, while not empirical statements are still statements, and therefore also ideas. In retrospect, perhaps "non-empirical theories" would be better. I would support a move from "philosophical theories" to "non-empirical theories."

I invite your correspondence on these issues. There are a few things I would like to do, for instance, to delete "Schools of thought" as a way to also help tighten things up in this area. (I think I am going to repost some of this to the other discussion) Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. For these reasons and others, perhaps you could be of assistance in persuading people to rename the Glossary of philosophical isms to Glossary of philosophical theories as I had proposed. Be well..-GB

Category:Victims of British political repression

Hi BHG, what do you make of this Category:Victims of British political repression? It seems a bit expansive, practically every Irish freedom fighter / rebel / nationalist / republican since the year 1169 could be included in it. Snappy (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It also includes all those British people who have suffered at the hands of that state. Swathes of 18th-century Scots, the Chartists, trades unionists, 20th-century anti-nuclear protestors, all the people repressed under the Terrorism Act 2000 from Walter Wolfgang.

This is one of many sub-cats of Category:Victims of political repression, so there is nothing surprising about having a British category in the series. The problem that strikes me with it, though, is that one person's political repression is another person's example either of the state taking proportionate measures to defend itself against people who want to disrupt society, or of rogue action by a misbehaved official, or group thereof. That's a POV assessment. Francis Sheehy-Skeffington's murder was carried out by the British army, and nobody — not even the British authorities at the time — argues that it was in any way a proportionate or remotely reasonable response to his peaceful activities. That doesn't answer the question, though because opinions can decide at a higher level on this issue, over the question of whether the declaration of martial law in Dublin was an act of political repression or a lawful emergency measure to restore the "rule of law".

The problem with the category is that while I hope no sane person would deny that "political repression" is a gross understatement of the history of English and then British rule in Ireland, most of its applications to individuals become POV issues. There are some fairly clearcut cases, such as Robert Emmett's expulsion from TCD for his political views, but if that hadn't happened it would a POV question as to whether his execution for his role in the 1803 rebellion was "political repression". So we end up with the absurdity that Emmett would be in this category only for a relatively trivial aspect of his life.

And what about the Birmingham Six? On one level, that was a fairly straightforward miscarriage of justice, with over-zealous police and lazy judges bowing to public pressure to "get someone" (like the Bridgewater Four). OTOH, it all happened in the highly-politicised context of public and state paranoia in Britain about the conflict in Norrn Iron.

I'm minded to put the whole category tree up for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

An edit war in the making. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this whole lot of cats should be up for deletion too. William Hoey Kearney Redmond was in the subcat Category:Irish victims of British political repression, while he was imprisoned for a short while for Land League activities, he was an MP and volunteered to join the British Army in WWI, then he was killed in action. So this alleged 'victim of British political repression' dies fighting for Britain, the very country that's supposed to be his oppressor! I agree with you when you said "is that one person's political repression is another person's example either of the state taking proportionate measures to defend itself against people who want to disrupt society". It will lead to endless edit warring. Snappy (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Vivian Henderson

Thanks: I don't know that it was all that elegant! I didn't realise it was a new article... I seem to have an urge to populate stubby articles about MPs or to create ones which are redlinks. With a bit of digging around there is usually something interesting to be found out: often their parliamentary career was only a minor part of their biography. Keep up the good work! Lozleader (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping

As you have shown an interest in this issue before, I invite you to comment at Template talk:WikiProject Ireland#Conversion to use Template:WPBannerMeta. Best wishes, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

List of films that often used the word fuck

Dear Editor, during talk page discussions, you requested at one point to be notified when this article was up for deletion again. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (9th nomination). Best regards, hoping you can supply some input, --Reinoutr (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have commented at AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

List of political families in the United Kingdom

Spring family seems to have no place here. See also minor edit war at Spring Baronets. Please resolve. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

From the discussion at Talk:Spring Baronets, it looks like this has now stabilised. If an edit war resumes, I'll protect the relevant pages pending a resolution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Anstruther baronet

Yes, I perhaps I was wrong to replace a precise link with "rayment-hc". The advantage of using the template is that it covers the situation that may arise if the website migrates to a new domain, as it did a while back. This gave a bot work to update all the links to his old webpage. The ideal answer would probably be to add a further level of complication to the template, so as to incorporate the initials letter of the a constituency, similarly for the peerage and baronetcy pages. I suspect that this is not in fact as simple as it sounds, as some letters may have more than one page. And by the way, thanks for handling the succession box "with" issue so well. I am now converting British succession boxes to the new format when i find them. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit of a Wiggin'

At least I could reuse the succ boxes. Cut and paste has its pros and cons, and at the moment I'm trying to limit the variables (one Welsh constituency and I got it wrong!). Glad to see you have managed to get to grips with all the Abel Smiths which I saw as a daunting prospect. Regards Motmit (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Carmarthen by-election, 1928

Hi, BHG

Thanks for the msg abt your by-election page, which I thought was really good. I don't mind if you want to do the trimming on the page abt William Nathaniel Jones that you suggest, although I don't really see the harm in some gentle duplication of material as long as it's relevant to both pages. On the categories, I was wondering where the Liberal Party politician cats had gone fm some of the pages I'd created. You're right, they're not needed in the case of MPs.

BTW, what is the difference between Reflist and Reflist|2 which I notice you have been using.

Regards

Graham --Graham Lippiatt (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Neeld

Discussion moved to Talk:Joseph Neeld#Chippenham_1830_or_1832

Editing Barnstar

		100,000 Edits
		I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________

Leeds MPs

Thanks for all your tidying-up work on Leeds MPs - you're all over my Watch List today! PamD (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the watchlist clutter!

I have been doing a big tidyup of MPs for the last few months, and Leeds came into my path today for some reason, and when I find one MP for a constituency I try to do a tidyup on all of them. Unfortunately this leads to a manically spiralling number of open tabs on my browser ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir Edward Barkham, 1st Baronet of South Acre

Please would you fix this for me. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you wanted done, but these edits are as far I can go, because I don't have enough info on other MPs for Boston in that era to do a succession box. Is that any good? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Congressman templates

We have been going at it in these TfDs but have not really come to an agreement on a direction to take although you have gotten support to remove the templates. I am disapointed not to have gotten your feedback on my new alternative.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first thing is that TFD is really a place for the keep/delete decision, not for setting a wider policy. TFD really only addresses a simple question of "should this template go", not "how should we organise all these articles".

And the second problem is that you seemed to me to completely fixated on the idea that there must be some all-encompassing template to attach to each Congressman. I don't see the need for that, and I don't see that you have identified any purpose which cannot be filled by succession boxes. {{USRepSuccessionBox}} includes a link to the article on the district, which is the place to provide a list of of all Reps for that district. It's only one click away if the reader wants it. Why this urge to make templates to include everything in the article?

The example you suggest of Jimmy Duncan (U.S. politician) looks to me to be absolutely horrid: there is almost a screenful of templates, and adding all that with the infobox adds up to a lot more screen space than the actual article. I think that article would be significantly improved by deleting everything below the succession box, and possibly adding one or two "see also" links.

I don't think I am going to persuade you that articles are better off without a raft of huge templates, so I didn't want to spend my energy trying. One of the things I have learnt over the years on wikipedia is that while a modest change may be easily achieved, bigger ones take can generate an awful lot of heat all round, and I think it's best for everyone to avoid that. So for now I'll satisfy myself with just seeing the removal of the two remaining monster templates. That will put an end to articles being doubled or tripled in size by having a massive list attached to them, and that's a useful improvement ... but at so,e stage in the future, I think that there will be a wider move away from the proliferation of big navigation templates. Some articles are becoming grotesquely overloaded by them, and there more this trend continues the more likely that there will at some stage be a move back to the old principle that it's quite enough to link to a list, rather than transcluding into the article a stripped-down version which omits so much of the info that makes a list useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Blue Coat School, building in Dublin

Resolved

Hi, BHG: I've been trying to sort out a mess of dabs and redirects for Blue Coat School, Blue-Coat School Bluecoat school (which were all pointing to different places,let alone The Blue Coat School!), and now find that a lot of the remaining links to the dab page are from Template:Irish parliament houses. I'm not sure where that link should go: Law Society of Ireland or The King's Hospital or somewhere else? Should I just dab it to a redlink as Blue Coat School, Dublin? Any thoughts? PamD (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Pam, but I know next-to-nothing about all that -- I hadn't even heard of a bluecoat school in Dublin until you mentioned it.

My best guess is that a redlink to Blue Coat School, Dublin is indeed the best option, because at least the link is there and all pointing in the same direction for the benefit of anyone who has the sources to figure out whether it should be a redirect to somewhere else or an article.

Sorry I can't be more helpful :(--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, it seemed worth asking as you'd commented on the template's talk page and I gather you're based on the right island! Thanks. PamD (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

... and the book title given as a reference in The King's Hospital resolves it: "The foundation of the Hospital and Free school of King Charles II., Oxmantown Dublin: commonly called the Blue coat school." I think I've sorted them all out now! PamD (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done, that looks like the answer! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

James Majendie

I am sure you have it watchlisted but I have just added a simple infobox for JHA Majendie. You had the line He died in January 1906 but the information I can find shows he died in 1939. I have not changed the article text I thought I would just check with you. MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note -- I had categorised his date correctly, but somehow got it wrong when I started writing the text. Now corrected.

However, I removed the infobox, for two reasons. First, it introduced facts about his place of death which are not backed up by any references ... and secondly, there's no need for an info box on such a short article. Infoboxes can sometimes be useful on longer articles, but they don't add anything useful when the text is so short and doesn't need summarising. The infobox also had the the unwelcome effect of pushing the succession box further down the page, forcing the reader to scroll, which is a Bad Thing^TM. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK understood - I have a reference for the info I added so will re-add it to the text soon. MilborneOne (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That'll be great ... and thanks for being nice about my removal of the infobox. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD: on a [T]hursday

Thank you for the giggle. David in DC (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Some things are too serious to take solemnly :)

... but thanks for correcting my sloppy capitalisation. I will repent by becoming a porn actor ... ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Victims of political repression

This is to notify you that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"no consensus to delete"???????

CFD closures are not supposed to be based on a counting of heads, and I have never before seen a CFD relisted with one of the options ruled out :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Ireland

Hello BrownHairedGirl. There are a couple of editors looking for you to further contribute to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration and I thought I would take it upon myself to ask you. Jack forbes (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack, thanks for the headsup.

I need to think on this a little more, and I'll pop back in a few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Welsh socialists

Hi, I notice you are rapidly removing a great many people from the category:Welsh socialists. May I ask what the rationale is for this? I'd readily agree that some of the modern Labour politicians included would not be regarded by most commentators, or themselves, as socialists, but others you've removed definitely are or were, e.g. staunch trade unionist Huw T. Edwards and Plaid's Adam Price MP. Was there a prior discussion and consensus reached for this wholesale removal? If you are emptying the category for deletion, as I'm inlcined to suspect, what is the basis for that? This is a perfectly valid category even if some of those included in it are suspect. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the msg.

No, I'm not emptying the category for deletion. If I wanted to delete it, I'd list it at WP:CFD, and a bot would empty it if there was a consensus to delete. I deplore pe-emptive emptying.

In my trawls through MPs, I had repeatedly noticed that this category had been added without any apparent justification to Labour Party politicians. Labour has long been a broad church, and has long included many people who are not socialists. (If all Labour politicians were Socialist, there'd be no need to add them individually to this category, because Category:Wales Labour Party politicians could be added to category:Welsh socialists rather than to Category:Social democrats.

So what I have done is to remove articles where there is no other mention of the person being a socialist. I am sure that some of the articles which I have removed do indeed belong in the category, and if a suitable reference can be found, they should be added back to the category. I doubt that will include the huge crop of New Labour politicians who were in the category. I'd probably agree with you about Adam, but we need a reference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Hope you'll forgive my perhaps over-hasty suspicion, but I've seen it before and they were going at a rate of knots! Agree with you about most of the Labour Luvlies of course. It's not really my field just that one or two of the articles were on my watchlist. Adam Price must surely have stated his belief in socialism on many occasions and is certainly regarded as a socialist. If I can find a ref sometime - busy on cy: at the moment - I'll add it. Problem is that finding the obvious is sometimes frustratingly difficult on the web. All's well, but perhaps you could give a bit of leewater in some cases? Sorry to have interrupted your editing. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all with being interrupted. Pre-emptive emptying of a category does happen, it's best to check if it looks like it may be in progress.

Sure, a bit of leeway is fine. There were a few I didn't remove despite some doubts, and so long as the category isn't flooded again without discretion, I'll probably leave it alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

PS It was this edit, in which I removed the category from a National liberal, that prompted me to purge the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a peek now. Spot of edit conflict just now as I was trying to post here but thought you'd like to know that Adam's back home (one solid ref despite so many blogs saying what you need - and you can't use them!). Enaidmawr (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Classic! Enaidmawr (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

This editor was injuncted for one year from editing Baronets, Arbuthnot articles and Ireland and UK political articles. There has been particular history between him and me. Presumably his time is up today because (1) he has been doing a countdown using road signs and (2) he is back to his old irritating tricks. For example renaming articles created by me such as Sir Benjamin Slade, 7th Baronet Benjamin Slade. Sir Ben is actually known as Ben, but Ben Slade already exists. I request that all today’s edits be reverted and that the articles ban / injunction be extended. It worked very well. For good measure I would add this edit [31]. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. I really had thought that VK had turned over a new leaf, and was focused on productively contributing to wikipedia rather than looking for opportunities for mischief :(

I took a quick look at his contribs list, and he appears to have just worked his way alphabetically down a list of baronets, renaming anything he could, and I have found several other problematic renamings, and one where he zapped a disambiguation page.

I think it's time for WP:ANI :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Correctly renamed dont you mean. "zapped a disambiguation page" - a page you created to distrupte and cause trouble and a page with only red links except for the article in question.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Vk, a disambiguation page does not cause trouble. A disambiguation page with redlinks is fine, provided that the redlinks are to notable people, and I have found several cases where you zapped this sort of disambiguation page.

I see no evidence that you have any interest whatsoever in developing or organising articles on baronets; your sole interest has been in renaming or deleting them, without regard to the consequences. WP:MOS is not a cudgel, so please stop trying to use it as one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct "a disambiguation page does not cause trouble" but if it was created to mwerely circumvent MOS then it can be - which is what you did.

"provided that the redlinks are to notable people" - if they are notable then create an article about them - you and Kitty are good at creating stubs so it shouldnt be much of a thore.

Its funny that you didnt seem to have much to say when Tryde was moving them (incorrectly) the other way! --Vintagekits (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Vk, what on earth are you on about?

A disambiguation page exists to disambiguate between notable people, and you should know by now that notability is a property of the subject, not of an article.

This bizarre claim that a dab page is somehow a circumvention of the MOS has nothing to do with improving wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There are to "disambiguate between notable people" - what people without an article and no proof whatsoever that they are even notable. Get a grip of yourself!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting U-turn, VK. In the past, you've argued exactly the opposite. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Brograve Beauchamp

Can you explain your move of this article. Its is against MOS. You have been informed of this before and to move it is distruptive.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the edit summary.

I'm astonished that after a year of sticking to the letter and spirit of your probation, that at the moment it's over you are back again making as much mischief as you vcan with baronets, moving articles without any consideration for the needs of disambiguation.

The only disruption here is that you have resumed a long-standing vendetta. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite the opposite - I am the one editing within wikipedia guidelines and intend to continue to do so - you and Kitty seem upset that you should have to following wiki rules. I am put article titles into there correct format per MOS naming conventions and the Peerage project. I am astonished that you have a problem with that.

I have no intention to cause disruption but the intentional total disregard for this issue has been annoying me for a long time whilst I was on the sidelines - onces these wrongs are righted then you wont be hearing for me again.

BTW, thank you for completely ignoring the issue I raised and trying to turn this into some sort of a dispute.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Vk, thanks for confirming that you have no substantive interest in the subject. That's what I thought, and it makes your interventions all he more problematic.

So what exactly are these "wrongs" which "annoy you"? The naming of articles in area of no substantive interest to you seems a very strange thing to be annoyed about. If your intention is genuinely not cause disruption, then using the MOs as a cudgel is a very bad way to go about it.

I have explained to you before, at great length, how many of these families of baronets recycled first names through several generations and often through several branches of the same family, and how in many cases these families held positions of power and influence for hundreds of years: the Acland family is one good example of that, with dozens of notable people of similar names.

You may despise such people, and your right to hold whatever POV you like on that, but your insistence on intervening in an area where you have no interest is highly disruptive. That's why you were barred from this area for a year as a condition of your final-final-final-last-chance unblocking, and the edit summaries on your talk page make it entirely clear that you were planning to cause trouble as soon as the ban expired.

You have been running a countdown timer for several weeks, and here are some of the edit summaries:

• [32] — "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!"
• [33] — "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!"
• [34] — "unlucky for some!"

These are clear threats of disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are now starting to bore me! I wont be rising to it! What exactly am I threatening to do?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Threatening to resume the disruptive and aggressive edit-warring for which you were blocked before and which led to your unblocking being on strict terms of probation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That is possibly the most moronic logic I have ever had laid before me! You got all that from "unlucky for some", "be very afraid" etc - way to AGF!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs) 12:47, 1 May 2009

WP:AGF explicitly states that the assumption of good faith need not be sustained in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Your "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!" comment is completely contrary to any intention work in a civil and collaborative manner. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You believe what you want - you've set your stall out early and if nothing else I respect that. Carry on!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your concern

Less of the bullshit, arm waving and drama.

1. . Are you aware of the naming conventions with respect to Baronets?
2. . What exactly are your concerns with respect the article title moves that I made today.
3. . Which article title moves exactly have you an issue with?
4. . Which ones do you agree with?
5. . Do you propose that we try and have a total overhaul fo the name convention?

Kind regards--Vintagekits (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to engage in this duscussion or escalate this by continuing to move them back?--Vintagekits (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am quite prepared to discuss this if someone wants to raise it in a civil manner.

However, your abusive edit summaries and your comments above about "moronic logic" make it quite clear that you have no intention of engaging in a civil and productive discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Should I take that as a no? If you havent an issue I will just crack on regardless. This is an olive branch - take it or leave it - your choice. --Vintagekits (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea. Why don't both of you begin this discussion as though nothing had been said beforehand. You know, wipe the slate clean and start again? Jack forbes (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that is what I was doing by starting a new discussion following a discussion with Spartaz.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Jack, but no. Because so many people have been around this so many times before, and it always comes down to the same thing: VK insisting that MOS is a cast-iron simple rule, and ignoring all the substantive issues about the difficulties of applying it rigidly in this area.

Per all VK's comments today, there is no reason whatsover to assume that he is acting in good faith. Even his so-called "olive branch" opens with the comment "less of the bullshit".

Sorry, but WP:CIVIL is a clear policy of wikpedia. Per that policy, I don't see why I should be required to waste huge amounts of time and energy trying to reach a consensus with an editor whose modus operandi on this issue is threats and abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Following the discussion on ANI, Spartaz requested that I stop moving article pages and discuss the substantive issue with you. You are refusing to do that and not only that you are escalating the issue by moving the pages back - which is against the MOS.

I am trying to be very very calm and not fall for your provocation and distruption but an admin is going to have to step in very soon before I take things into me own hands.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your response to my idea. Now, if VK where to promise not to use language that was seen as threatening or insulting would that be a way forward to getting this discussion back onto an even keel? Jack forbes (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Way to pander to distruption - one rule for one and another for another!

(ec)Vk, "Less of the bullshit", "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", and "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!" are not calm.

Writing all that and then accusing others of "provocation and distruption" is nonsense. Stop trying to shift the responsibility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are editing in a distruptive manner. "Less of the bullshit" - refers to all of us! the other two comment have nothing to do with this.

Is anyone going to stop her - if I acted like this I would now be banned!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Jack, I appreciate your attempt to find a middle way, but it doesn't work when dealing with Vintagekits. This has been Vk's modus operandi so many times, and I'm not going to get sucked into it again.

He issues threats, starts disrupting, pours out abuse ... and then blames others for the resulting wikidrama.

Vintagekits has promised plenty of times before to refrain from all this, and it was a condition of his probation. But he didn't even wait until the expiry of his probation to resume the threatening behaviour, and I don't see any reason why an assurance now should be believed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it there then. I hope the both of you can eventually sort this out amicably. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns (Take II)

Lets everyone put the bullshizzle, arm waving and drama behind them and discuss the substanive issue at hand.

1. . Are you aware of the naming conventions with respect to Baronets?
2. . What exactly are your concerns with respect the article title moves that I made today.
3. . Which article title moves exactly have you an issue with?
4. . Which ones do you agree with?
5. . Do you propose that we try and have a total overhaul fo the name convention?

Kind regards--Vintagekits (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am quite happy to engage in any such discussion with editors who don't open the subject with threats and abuse and attempts to blame others.

You have taken the same abusive and threatening approach to this issue many times in the past, and the fact that you resumed it immediately after the end of your probation gives me no reason whatsoever to believe that any assurances you may now make about your conduct are worth anything at all.

I was one of those who argued strongly a year ago that your indefinite block should be lifted, and that you should be given one absolutely final chance to contribute constructively to wikipedia. However, the fact that you started making threats before your probation had even expired leaves me no reason to sustain my hope that you had actually changed your approach.

At this point, I feel threatened and intimidated by you, yet again. Please stay off my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)14:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous, can someone just tell me, in words of one sylable, what exactly does the MOS say on this subject. Was VK acting lawfully or not? Giano (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is exactly what the MOS says, at WP:NCNT#Other_cases:

Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix.

Note those words "when disambiguation is necessary". Vk has not only failed to check whether disambiguation is necessary, he accuses those trying to disambigaute of being dusruptive.

See some of the examples listed at WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to see a lot of problems, not least, "Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives." which of course they don't. They become baronets on the death's of their fathers, which is usually about 20 years before their own. If they are lucky, they are baronets for only 25% of their lives. Knights are more frequently knighted in their 40s, so are probably titled for longer than baronets. Whereas peers have at least a courtesy title for most of their lives (if only after the death of a grandfather - often before). You obviously have a minefield here. My advice is for you all to tread carefully. Quite frankly, anyone with half a gram of brain can drive a coach and horses through the present MOS on this subject. I cannot think why those of you who are bothered have not all sorted this out over the last year. Giano (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Have I fallen asleep and woken up in early 2007? – iridescent 19:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you check, you'll find that many of them inherited the title a lot younger than that, because of early deaths of a childless baronet. But that's a sideline: I am not arguing that all baronets need to be named with their title.

The problem here is that of disambiguation, for two reasons. Firstly, because whenever these people got their titles, they were part of families which wielded power and influence for generations, so it was very common for many other members of the family -- both titled ones and otherwise -- to be MPs or notable military people or prominent financiers or whatever. One can take a variety of views on the merits of that (and I for one despise it), but the historical fact is that it happened, so we end up with clusters of people sharing the same surname, and holding similar positions. There are scores of constituencies where the same families dominated the old limited-franchise elections for a century or two or three, and where there may be several people named "John X" sharing the same post.

And to add to the fun, these families tended to recycle first names, both before and after gaining (or buying) a title. That's why these articles need to be approached with a presumption of ambiguity, and the disambiguating title removed only after careful checks. If Vk was actually doing those checks rather than just rapid-fire pressing the move button, there wouldn't have been a problem.

As to why this wasn't "all sorted out" before ... well, the fact is that it was sorted. All the editors involved respected the need for disambiguation, and the system worked. It was only today, when VK decided that ir was time to act on his warning ("dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!") that there has been anything to sort out.

And yes, iridiscent, it is early 2007. Vintagekits-trying-to-make-trouble-and-the-pleading-victimisation take 397 :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

John Grant Lawson

You moved the article about John Grant Lawson to Sir John Lawson, 1st Baronet citing Wikipedia:NCNT#British_peerage. This baronets name is John Grant Lawson not John Lawson. Can you explain this because it appears to me that it was done purely as a disruptive measure and to provike.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop your distruptive editing! Proof as if it was needed.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits, you are being troublesome again.

If you had checked http://www.leighrayment.com/baronetage/baronetsL1.htm you would realise that he family name is Lawson, not Grant Lawson.

But as repeatedly demonstrated before, you have neither the interst not expertise in this area to do these moves properly. One more such move, and I will block you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

He was known as John Grant Lawson throughout his life!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No he wasn't. See http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/people/sir-john-lawson --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

IRC?

Hi, BrownHairedGirl, do you use IRC? Could I have a word on #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en-admins? Regards, Bishonen | talk 17:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

No, I don't use IRC. But I do have email enabled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Real-time chat is what I'm after, though. Do you have G-mail talk? Bishonen | talk 17:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

It looks like I may do: I see a link to it on my gmail page. But I have never used it, so I have no idea how it goes or whether it works on my Linux version of Firefox. Do you want to try it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. I'm e-mailing you so as to give you my gmail address, then you'll be able to contact me. Bishonen | talk 18:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

Got it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Template on top of page

The template regarding your break from your wikibreak only says you expect to be around for most of February and March. Considering it's now May, its kinda dated. Have you at all thought of updating it? John Carter (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! Thanks for the reminder :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Baronet names

(To save clogging up ANI). I would've thought - and correct me if I'm wrong - that the only need to use the pre- and postfixes on these names is when there's two baronets with the same name (i.e. Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet and Sir John Smith, 2nd Baronet). Otherwise, doesn't the MOS naming just apply - and therefore the example used on ANI should be John Lawson (British politician)? Black Kite 23:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The practice has always been to use the baronetcy as a disambiguator where the bare name requires disambiguation, and I think that's the most straightforward reading of WP:NCNT#British_peerage. If we took the other reading, then the title need never be used as a disambiguator -- if we didn't use the title for one baronet, there is no grater reason to use it for two, because we could have John Smith (late 17th century Bodmin politician) rather than Sir John Smith, 215th Baronet, so the guideline should simply say "never use the baronetcy title as part of the article name, just use another disambiguator"

The point consistently missed in all this is that disambiguation is one of the huge hassle of biographical articles. Every day I edit here, I find myself creating several disambiguation pages as well as disambiguating dozens of redlinks to people who are clearly notable but as yet have no article, and if we look at the lists of ambiguous names, we can see how big an issue it is. And as wikipedia expands, this problem is going to get worse and worse. Personally, I despise titles, and in my dealings with British govt ministers who hold titles I refuse to use them ... but when it comes to disambiguation of wikipedia articles, they are a godsend. They provide a unique, pre-determined, NPOV disambiguator -- no need to decide how to distinguish between Members of Parliament (MPs), from the same party with similar careers, there's a readymade disambiguator.

And this is more critical than it seems trying to disambiguate the lists of British MPs, the same names crop up so often that there is frequently no alternative but to use dates of birth and death, because everything else (party, location, middle names if any) is identical.

This disambiguation of MPs is a huge job. But what has been happening for the last two days that Vk, who couldn't give a damn abut the subject, has been taking a sledgehammer to a lot painstaking work, and even has cheerleaders joining in to support his cries of victimisation.

I notice in all this that none of the editors who regularly work on MPs have supported Vk in this, and half-a-dozen have denounced the disruptive effect. It's very disheartening to watch such licence being given to a deliberate and planned effort to sabotage so much work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits

I am completeley shocked at the way you have been treated the last few days. I have followed your editing for three years and to me you seem like the examplary Wikipedia contributor: intelligent, hard-working, helpful, fair and above all friendly. The way a hateful individual like Vintagekits is allowed to disrupt Wikipedia and hurl abuse at you and other editors is a disgrace. Of course I'm not completely uninvolved as I have moved a number of articles on baronets against the strictest interpretations of Wikipedia naming policies (which I think are inconsistent and flawed). I probably deserve more criticism for the malicious crime of including titles in article names. However, like you I would never dream of disrupting Wikipedia in any way.

I hope you don't allow yourself to be hounded off Wikipedia by someone like Vintagekits. Please stay. Your friendly manner and excellent contributions are appreciated by me, and I am sure, many other Wikipedia editors. Tryde (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Archived

All current discussions have been archived to User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_016.

Any further postings here will probably be archived immediately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)