I think I cared a bit until I left, partly because prefects need to toe the line with house competition matters, but would have cared slightly more if Tindal had ever been in with a shout of winning the cup. Anyway, even when I was at KEGS, I could never remember whether Strutt was green and Mildmay yellow or vice-versa... BencherliteTalk16:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bishops
Hi. Hope all is well. I've noticed you have been moving a lot of pages citing WP:BISHOP. I also noticed a lot of the moves don't actually seem to be based on this page. Eanbald II to Eanbald (floruit 798), Wilfrid to Wilfrid (7th century bishop) for instance; in the latter case there should be an adjectival "-" ("8th-century bishop", NOT "8th century bishop") anyway. Not sure eliminating numerals really serves us well for bishops in the pre-surname era, as they are often in common use and act as better natural disambiguators than for instance "8th-century bishop" does. I appreciate WP:BISHOP has nothing to say on this yet. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. I was removing the numerals because they seemed to be a sort of invented surname, adding an element which simply was not part of the common name. Based around the idea that it is not Wikipedia's business inventing surnames... I shall refrain from making such moves again in the near future. PS I'm reasonably sure that 8th-century vs 8th century is a stylistic choice rather than a matter of absolute right/wrong DBD17:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DATE touches on it briefly, but the real guide in the categories (see Category:7th_century for example, where in all the sub-categories it is 7th-century as an adjective). I have updated the WP:BISHOP page to clarify the matter. BTW, numerals aren't invented surnames ... they are numerals and are in use (see the Handbook of British Chronology, which uses numerals in this manner). E/c including the bishop of Winchester, Æthelwold "II". :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm leaving you to it. Do be a good chap and clean up properly, though. Seeing a few double-redirects atm. DBD17:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I'll have a look. A bot takes care of the d/redirects, but I'll go into the tables. Thanks for your good work in these matters btw. If I could just ask one small favorito, when you move bishops pages can you prioritize the templates for link fixes as well as main table articles? :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DBD - While I appreciate the value of fixing the redirects to articles like Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II, you seem to be, in the process of doing so, removing the title "Queen" from all instances where it appears before the name "Elizabeth II". Note at Parliament Hill, you did so twice: [1][2]. Though the deletion was unwarranted in both cases, the first I could kind of understand, given that "Queen" was part of and disappeared along with the piped link. But, in the second occurrence, there were no links to fix and the word was simply deleted. I don't know anything about WP:AWB, but I imagine the problem lies with its use...? --ĦMIESIANIACAL04:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw the revert by Calendarwatcher (who is apparently operated by more than one other editors but no one has got to the bottom of it). In this case, CW was right to revert. Please note that spaced en, not em, dashes should be used as interruptors.
Please keep your paranoid--and utterly unproved and unprovable--fantasies to yourself, Tony: I am one person and one person only. If you have some reason to believe other-wise, put up or shut up. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not dismiss Tony1's point so quickly. There has never been a satisfactory explanation for Arthur Rubin's edit which had an edit summary of "I guess I should add myself, as a CalendarWatcher". Note the bizarre way that "CalendarWatcher" was used: no space between "Calendar" and "Watcher" and the exact capitalization of the user in question. When that is coupled with suspicious editing patterns, it's obvious why there will always be doubt over the CalendarWatcher account. GFHandel.22:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit puzzled as to why you have deleted all those non-breaking spaces from 31 and 33 Dee Banks, Chester and 2–18 St Werburgh Street, Chester; and you do not seem to have replaced them with hard spaces in any other way. According to the MoS here, a non-breaking space should be inserted "between the date number and month name", "after the number in a numbered address ", and "before Roman numerals". You seem to have removed them in all these instances. Perhaps I am missing something, but my understanding is that non-breaking spaces should be used "to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line", and gives these as examples. Can you explain please (you can reply here as I shall be watching). Thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's the wrong term but it's what the template uses. See the Prince of Wales, Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of York, etc. articles. I'll revert if that's OK?
I see you've had a busy day moving. I don't have an opinion on the capital thing, but I really hope it sticks now as it is a fairly tedious problem. :) Do note that consensus was never reached to apply the standard to abbots and priors ... and there is good reason not to. Do note disambiguation. Ailin is not the only Ailin (e.g. Ailín I and Ailín II); Enguerrand of Glasgow is not the only bishop with that name (though none I can see with many articles, article creation is likely and moving creates unnecessary work: fr:Enguerrand_de_Metz), same with Jocelin. I'll make the appropriate fixes. Thanks for updating the templates btw. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Alexander Lindsay of Evelick" is not the only one. There are several barons of the barony of Evelick with the same name. See if you see articles I've done and they have dabs like that, it will be almost certain that the dab is needed because I research this when I created them. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BISHOP: "For bishops and archbishops in the Western world, do not use their episcopal or archiepiscopal title in the article name unless necessary for disambiguation..." Thus, we disambiguate bishops first using "(bishop)" and then, if there are several bishops of the same name, according to (archi)episcopal title "(bishop of Cork and Ossory)" or "(archbishop of Canterbury)". The reason I have purged "(archbishop)" is because all archbishops are bishops – "archbishop" is only a title to be held while in that see (i.e. these people revert to bishop upon retirement or otherwise vacating the see), whereas "bishop" is the ecclesiastical order to which all of these (arch)bishops belong in perpetuity. DBD02:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The full quotation is: "do not use their episcopal or archiepiscopal title in the article name unless necessary for disambiguation". In fact, despite your citing this guideline in various edit summaries, there is nothing in WP:NCWC advocating or even mentioning changing the title from "archbishop" to "bishop". Personally I don't agree with this move, which seems to be your own idea. Another thing that I find confusing is that on occasion you have re-introduced the episcopal title (for example, moving "Edward Joseph Byrne" to "Edward Byrne (bishop)" - what's the point of that? He was already known as Edward Joseph Byrne, and his biography (referenced in the article) is of "Edward J. Byrne". There are several other instances of what I would regard as unnecessary moves, however due to work on other projects I can't get too deeply involved in each individual case. Hohenloh + 16:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the separate issue of dab by occupation rather than middle name, see WP:COMMONNAME. See some discussion elsewhere on my talk page(s) for why and how I establish common names. Once common name is established, I then dab by the most appropriate method – usually be adding (bishop), as prescribed by WP:BISHOPDBD17:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on Royal peers who are/were princes should be at "Prince Name, Rank of Title" (i.e. no ordinal). Examples: Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn.
refers to princes rather than princesses
plus the wording in the note rather indicates it is refering to royal dukes/royal peerages which the fife dukedom isnt.
that was my reading of it but if i am incorrect could you ellaborate?Nirame (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I see what you mean – I suppose this one is open to interpretation a bit. I would suggest leaving it at the long-established title (with the assumption that that somehow implies consensus) until a discussion establishes a new consensus either way. DBD20:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing is the number in the title shows the rarer aspect of being her title being in her own right otherwise it just looks the same as those becoming duchesses by marriage.Nirame (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't object to the move? What i could do is move it back to "2nd .."for now copy our discussion to the talk page and see if anyone adds anything or takes issue with it?Nirame (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote most of the Wikipedia article on the late Archbishop McQuaid. You changed his name to "John McQuaid". Nobody in Ireland ever knew him by this name. He was "John Charles McQuaid" "John Charles" or "Archbishop McQuaid" NEVER "John McQuaid". Apparantly I can't change titles but the current one is misleading. Kilbarry1 (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide me with a reliable source please? I'm reasonably happy to take your word for it, but it'd be nice to see some evidence. I will then happily move it back. DBD22:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay then. I tried to discover what his surname was, but came up Trench (his father was...). I shall add a hatnote and correct the sorts then DBD14:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Sorry about that. I see what the issue is now – a cite was provided inside a s-box, which should always be after References. Sorted, with apologies... DBD19:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent 20 minutes reverting changes, (and seeing which ones may remain,) you made to articles refering to the complex of mills in Ancoats. In 2008 we spent some time getting the the article title right which was not easy as the apostrophe has moved over the 230 years they have been in existence, I would have appreciated it if you had discussed your intention to to change any of this on a talk page first. I have corrected you disamb hat notes - Murrays was never a company A& G Murray however was. The coffee pot is on at my place if you want to pop over and learn something about 18 th century Manchester. Do come on round --ClemRutter (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough – I've moved the bishop otherwise. I have instated a different hatnote instead. I hope it's ok DBD11:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When realigning the article Zara Phillips with WP:MOS, I removed the honourific "Mrs" that you had, in spite of what appears to be the consensus, assigned to her. Please do not change again as we do not know what her preferred title will be - see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:VERIFY for official Wikipedia policy. Martinvl (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
