User talk:Opera hat/Archive 5

Whom

Whom is admittedly not archaic but is certainly dated, especially with regards to being used in place of "of which" and when not following prepositions. Are there any Wikipedia policies suggesting its use? It is not current in most dialects except to sound "formal", or in actuality, snobbish. Dayshade (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "whom" at WP:MOS to see if there was any guidance one way or the other. There isn't, but the MOS itself uses whom multiple times, which surely implies that its use is condoned if not expected. I use it in speech without thinking about it and I'm not trying to be snobbish. As this is a written encyclopaedia we should be using formal and not dialect English. Opera hat (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - were you taught to use it or have you used it since childhood naturally? Which dialect do you speak? Maybe it's just particularly out of use in my own Midwestern American dialect - the only person I know who uses it is my grandmother, and when I've asked her about it, she's said she only used it because she was told it was "correct" in school, and I regularly hear "of who" and such. Using who when whom is prescriptively called for, except after prepositions, can hardly be called dialectal as the large majority of dialects use who with that one exception (do you disagree with that?). Why should formal mean dated? Any suggestions on how to stop wanting to eradicate whom? I absolutely loathe it and any other prescriptivist "rules" like no split infinitives/no ending sentences with prepositions/no singular they/etc. Dayshade (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H'm, you've got me thinking now. No, I wouldn't have used it since childhood naturally, and when talking I probably only use it after prepositions. I'd ask "Who are you talking about?" (and not the ludicrously over-formal "About whom do you speak?"). But when writing I would use it whenever it "should" be used, though I do recognise this is possibly slightly old-fashioned now. With regard to the dialect thing: I was born and brought up in the southeast of England, and though I haven't lived there since my teens I still speak the same way, which I suppose is standard British English. You've caught me out in a classic bit of south-of-England unconscious arrogance, in that I would never have considered myself to be speaking a dialect at all; until now I just would have thought that I spoke "English" and anyone else who spoke differently had the dialect. I didn't really regard myself as being culturally a southerner any more (though I still sound like one), but you've shown me that I still am!

What I am curious about is replacing "of whom" with "of which". Although I take the point that "whom" is gradually on the way out and those who still use it are fighting a rearguard action, I would have thought using "which" was totally wrong here. Which for things, who(m) for people - and that is definitely a rule I would have applied naturally since childhood. Obviously you wouldn't agree, and I came across the same usage at Charles Stanhope, 12th Earl of Harrington recently ("...sisters, the elder of which..."). Normally I would have just done a drive-by correct to "whom" on that article, but if using "of which" for people is standard in other forms of English, I'm a bit hesitant to do so now. What are your thoughts about that? Opera hat (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This might indeed just be a dialect thing, but "of which" sounds best there to me, with "of whom" sounding very snobbish (but probably not "wrong"), and "of who" sounding a little bit off, somehow (though I don't know why). Though there are some others (I think always where the "who... main phrase... (preposition)" construction can be used) where it does sounds wrong. The usage of whom instead of that far more common construction, or even just a normal object clause with "who" seems to occur in every other celebrity page (often in the personal life section): [1], [2], [3] (this one I find particularly angering - very few in most dialects (I think) would say that without being taught to), and many others. I think I take issue more with "corrections" I've spotted over time of which to whom - most are a few years old, but this one was only a few months old, so I decided to revert that one, since as far as I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to prefer one dialect over another. Here are a few non-person examples: [4], [5] (this one is particularly weird, since the "whom" is referring to a culture as a whole - should it be reverted to "which", in your opinion?), [6]. Dayshade (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In British English certainly, using "of which" about a person is non-standard and can be expected to be corrected. Examples 4 and 6 still refer to people so I'd use "whom" there as well, but I agree with you about 5. Opera hat (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

regarding The White Knight (Fitzgibbon)

I appreciate the advice/concern regarding the sources. I agree my original citation was rather lazy. I will point out to that I HAVE personally read the cited sources, they are available on Google books. The references to physical texts draw a complete line from the early medieval period in Ireland, through the Earls of Clare, to the modern period. I will also point out that, regarding the Alan G Freer website, the man is a peer-recognized expert in his field and a rigorous academic. All Opera Hat had to do to locate content relating to the family would be to search 'Fitzgibbon' within the cited webpage, to find a clear relationship between historical and living members of the family line in question. A LITTLE bit of scholarship would be nice when you ppl delete content. I mean, why not actually investigate the source before deleting valid citations? If the citations are not perfectly formatted, why not just format them a little better and do some actual scholarly work rather than deleting valid content? PBS, Opera Hat, and Doug Weller all seem to be making a priori judgments about citations without doing any investigation, and with a lot of unfounded prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinstuartlyon (talk • contribs) 11:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond at Talk:White Knight (Fitzgibbon family). Opera hat (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Opera Hat I would like to thank you for your efforts regarding research toward this article. Although we haven't agreed on many of my assertions, I feel a lot of very interesting information has been unearthed by your research and I do appreciate it. It does take time.

I'm wondering if I can ask you a quick question, related to the topic of heraldry but not specifically the White Knight? You seem very knowledgeable on the subject. I've looked for an answer but I haven't yet found an authoritative one. My question is, when a heraldic heiress marries a non-argmiger (commoner), are her arms passed to their male children? Specifically in the tradition of England and Ireland. Thanks very much in advance! Justinstuartlyon (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not at all; I find this sort of thing interesting. And Wikipedia would be a lot better if every editor approached disagreements with the same attitude as you have!

W.r.t. heraldic heiresses: unfortunately their children couldn't bear her arms on their own, unless they received a Royal Licence to do so. Her husband would be entitled to bear her arms on an inescutcheon of pretence above his own, and their children would be entitled to quarter her arms with their father's, but if the father isn't an armiger then there's nothing to quarter them with. The College of Arms doesn't grant posthumous arms, and I don't the Chief Herald of Ireland does either, but Lord Lyon in Scotland does. If you were to get Lyon to make a grant of arms to the ancestor that married the heraldic heiress (I presume we're talking about Doreen Adele Monica Clare FitzGibbon here) then under the English system I'd say that would then give their descendants in the male line the right to quarter these new arms with FitzGibbon and Dillon grand-quartered in the second and third. To bear the arms in Scotland you'd then have to get a separate matriculation for yourself, unless you are the heir-male or his eldest son. If I remember rightly, there's a detailed explanation of the rules on marshalling in Fox-Davies' Guide to Heraldry, which you should be able to find to view online. Opera hat (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting thanks. I will look into that. And you are of course correct in identifying my personal stake in the matter! Best, Justinstuartlyon (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Opera hat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Eugenie of York

Hi, there! Just pointing out that the only time a British princess has dropped a territorial designation was when they were UNMARRIED! You are absolutely correct that Eugenie's title should not have been changed. In fact, it was done so by someone who never provided a source in the first place...2605:8D80:400:EEA5:74B5:522:5504:8989 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, (contrary to this post by another user), she is not "called Princess Eugenie at her own website!" That is a sub-page at the Duke of York's website; proving she is still designated under his territorial branding.2605:8D80:400:EEA5:74B5:522:5504:8989 (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every change made to that page is original research by those other users which goes firmly against Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living persons.2605:8D80:402:2CD1:F597:6091:5E85:CC8 (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this... We also have Queen Victoria (who outranked her husband just like Eugenie does).2605:8D80:404:49A0:F9A2:8ECF:4333:8490 (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edward_Hyde_(died_1665)

Hello Opera hat I have added projects United Kingdom, England, Law, Biographies, to your article. You may wish to join them, check their to-do, and meet new people with interest in these topics. Cheers, --Gryllida (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane, Duchess of Gordon/Lady Jane Dundas

Hi Opera hat, I have no dog in this fight. I was just quoting Hackman (2001), p.133-4. "It is noteworthy that Lady Jane Dundas was the only lady to have two East Indiamen named after her, one with her maiden name and the other after her marriage, and that both were lost at the same time with all hands." Hackman does get the occasional thing wrong (I have caught him a number of times on the history of individual ships), and he could well be wrong on this too. If so, please feel free to correct the both articles.Acad Ronin (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Opera hat, nice work. You are surely correct. I love it when a WP article is more correct than any one of its sources. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom by-elections listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of United Kingdom by-elections. Since you had some involvement with the List of United Kingdom by-elections redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link changes

Hi, please explain to me why you are editing World Series of Poker multiple bracelet winners (and other pages I think) so that David Baker (poker player, born 1986) is being replaced by a redirect link. I'm confused - are you wanting to change the name of the player article? Officially Mr X (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I explained it by the edit summary: WP:NOPIPE, which says that "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects." See also WP:NOTBROKEN. Opera hat (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Footballer disambiguation

This is not an uncontroversial technical request (also pinging @Anthony Appleyard:), it is undiscussed and against standard naming conventions for footballers. Year of birth is preferable because a) it doesn't change whereas nationality for footballers does frequently! - see Ricky Shakes who was born in England but played football for Guyana and Trinidad & Tobago, how would you disambiguate him?) and b) it can be ambiguous, calling somebody 'Irish footballer' confueses them with somebody who plays Gaelic football. I have reverted the moves. GiantSnowman 06:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) before making the moves. Can you point me to the standard naming convention you mention? And I didn't move a few other similar articles because of the kind of ambiguity you describe over nationality. The (footballer, born year) format goes against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) and WP:Article titles, so should be avoided wherever possible. Opera hat (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish culture

Just a heads up over William Douglas, 1st Marquess of Douglas and this move. Although the spelling is Marquess in England and Ireland, in Scotland it is necessary to check the sources because in some periods of history Scotland was closer to France than England (like just now--political, but not of course geographically), so in some periods a Marquess in Scotland may be better known as by the French spelling Marquis (see Marquess#In the United Kingdom). -- PBS (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it is relevant what spelling was used at the time in Scotland. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Middle Scots Wikipedia. Opera hat (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my first edit here contained a wrong link "this move", I have corrected the link. I agree that what was used in Scotland at the time is not relevant. However what is relevant, is what is used in reliable English language sources, so with Scottish marquesses it is necessary to check sources, and not just assume, because marquess is the most common spelling in general for the rank of marquess, that "the Marquess of X" is necessarily "the most common form in English as the article title" for Scottish marquess. -- PBS (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I knew what you meant. But as I wrote at the time, the place to have that discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Opera hat (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so because naming convenions are not prescriptive (unlike rule based MOS), but support the WP:AT policy, so it is unreasonable to expect the naming conventions to cover all possible combination. The lead to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) acknowldges the concepts in the AT policy of using an article title based on the usage in reliable sources. Also to be precise, and to give us further ambugity (wriggle room), we are not talking about "British" peers, but pre-union "Scottish" peers. All I was pointing out that in the case of Scottish marquesses, the justification for naming a page should be based on usage in reliale sources and not automatically assume that marquess is the "correct" spelling based on some oblique "rule" in WP:NCNT. -- PBS (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Talbot and John Crosbie

Hi Opera hat, I have commented out John Talbot (died 1818) from John Talbot and John Crosbie (disambiguation). Red links on disambiguation pages are supposed to be accompanied by a link to an existing article, but I couldn't find any mention of this John Talbot. If you know of an existing article to add, please let me know and I will make the correction. Leschnei (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Opera hat (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 24#Category:2016 Labour Party (UK) leadership election

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 24#Category:2016 Labour Party (UK) leadership election. Thanks! Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Anthony Jephson

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Anthony Jephson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ComplexRational (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Cornelius Bolton

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cornelius Bolton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ComplexRational (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of MacMahon family for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MacMahon family is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacMahon family until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General Robert Manners

Please would you check out comments regarding Robert Manners here [7] since I think there has been a mistranscription involved. I am sure it can be quickly sorted. Thanks. Arbil44 (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you had a very nice Christmas Opera hat...I am wondering whether you might have any suggestions to add here [8]? Thanks in advance! Arbil44 (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I hope you did too! I'm afraid I can't help with the godfather question, and I'm not sure it is relevant to Wikipedia anyway. Hunting through baptismal records seems like a classic example of WP:Original research. Opera hat (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't so much for Wikipedia as me t.b.h.! I had hoped you would know where to look. Baptism records have not been found. If this information were to be found in a reliable source, would it still be unacceptable? Arbil44 (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course, if it has been published, then it would be acceptable. Opera hat (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although not Manners related, might you be able to date the image here Cyril Lloyd (British Army officer) by recognising the rank and medals? I've stabbed a guess at 1941, but I think it might be earlier as he looks so young compared with the NPG image, which has had to be removed. The NPG image has been discussed on his talk page. I just don't like imprecision. Arbil44 (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd known those tabs were red I'd have known too! I wondered if they were something RA related, which I didn't recognise. He aged massively in the space of a year. I appreciate your help.Arbil44 (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earldom of Gowran

Opera Hat

You erased days of work when you redirected this page without discussion. Where is my original text please? I am not happy.

ManorialManorial (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Earldom of Gowran. Opera hat (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodanic Republic

Hi, I made this modification because the article is wrong. This article is the mix of the the "Rhodanic Republic" and the "Rodanie". It's not the Rhodanic Republic (1802-1810) that is shown in the map but the Rhodanie (1798). --Chelin (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the map or changing the caption is fine, but your edit also removed "Rhodanic Republic" from the first sentence and left a load of incorrectly formatted bold and italic text. Opera hat (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]