User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 002

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
BrownHairedGirl's archives
BrownHairedGirl's Archive
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

Contents

Baronets

Well done. It looks good. But it needs to be added to [[1]] - Kittybrewster 14:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kitty, now done. While I was at it, I added a column for extinction too, 'cos Rayment lists a lot of extinct titles. --BrownHairedGirl 14:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You should remove the column, because Baronetage of the United Kingdom is only for existent, dormant of abeyant baronetcies. The whole list is under List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom, including all these baronetcies, which became extinct. Thanks Phoe 15:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
My error. Sorry. There are so many baronetcies missing - as shown here - Kittybrewster 15:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
No prob, Kitty, you were not to know Mellor was extinct. It should all be sorted now. --BrownHairedGirl 15:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Irish constituencies

Hi, I've been working on the Irish constituencies. I've updated all the Irish House of Commons, Patriot Parliament to the XX (Parliament of Ireland constituency) pattern. I've also done constituencies A-E on the List of Irish constituencies page.

As I made a number of moves, is it possible to have double direct names changed automatically. I think I've noticed you using these "bots" elsewhere. The names I've moved are:

That's what I changed under "E". I expect to move more beginning with West, North, and South.--Damac 15:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that's a good idea:
  1. It creates a huge jumble of redirects
  2. The names used were actually of the form "East Mayo" etc. Categ sort can be done easily enough by indexing, so I'm not sure I see much gain from these moves. Would you mind if I rolled them back?
I know that'll be a bit frustrating for you, but having started to do one change, I found that it created a huge tangle. --BrownHairedGirl 16:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
No probs rolling them back. Is there an easy way though of categorising them under the correct letter (i.e. "M" for East Mayo) without having to edit each seperate article?--Damac 16:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes - see East Wicklow ... categories - Kittybrewster 16:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Kity is right on how to edit the page, but and I'm afraid there is no way out of manually editing each page. But it's not so hard if you use Firefox with the OPen Link In extension, or Opera (which does that same thing out of the box). What I'd do is this, the easiest way I know of:
  1. open a new browser window (not a tab, a window),
  2. open up the category page
  3. then run down the list doing Ctl-click on each article to open it in a new tab. Do about 15 at a time
  4. then run across the tabs pressing the edit button on each one
  5. then edit the one in font of me, preview it, and close ... and then the nxt one coms to the top.
Sounds a bit complex, but doing that batch of fifteen would usually take me about five minutes in all. --BrownHairedGirl 17:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Mellor Baronets

  • Thanks for linking the 2nd Baronet to his page. As it didnt link before I edited it I assumed he didnt have a page. And as you say, I was using the 'Baronet' in the links for the sake of disambuation as they all have the same name. I think that better than using their middle name. --Berks105 09:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it did link, but not to worry, all sorted now. --BrownHairedGirl 09:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh I must have missed that!--Berks105 09:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Easily done :) And thanks for fixing the retirement date on Robert Scott (Conservative politician). --BrownHairedGirl 09:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Succession box header templates

Hi BrownHairedGirl, we seem to have lost all the colourings from these boxes and it makes them look very very bland now, as well as making things less clear to the more casual reader of the relevent articles. Am hoping you know more about whats happened to the templates and hopefully have them put pack the way they were. Cheers Galloglass 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too, and like you I much preferred the colorful ones. I dunno how that happened, but I notice that there were some tweaks to the templates, which I guess may have done it -- I mean apart from the adding more parliaments, I think someone changed the code that gets inserted. Will take a look. --BrownHairedGirl 13:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Got it: I had to revert he changes that had been made to the templates. The colors should start coming back as pages get refreshed in the cache. --BrownHairedGirl 14:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
There was actually a (technically if not aesthetically) valid reason for removing the colours. See the discussion at User talk:Phoe#Templates and User talk:Ed_g2s#S-off and S-Par. This discussion should really have taken place on the project talk page – I'll put a link there now. JRawle (Talk) 15:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Ooops! Thanks, JRawle, for the pointer. Having read the discussion, I can understand why the colours were removed, although I think the decision is mistaken (for the same reason that you liked them). I suggest a discussion on the project page before anyone removes them again. --BrownHairedGirl 15:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


{{S-par}}

The table heading should come up bold if you use a table heading (<th> / !). Also, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization#Coloured_headings ed g2s • talk 00:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

When I restored the colours, the headings were not coming up bold, though I accept that they do with with the table heading. But I'll reply properly at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization#Coloured_headings: better to have this discussion in one place! --BrownHairedGirl 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I put a comment on that page. And please, if you will restore the templates the next time, could do it on s-jud and s-mil, too? It's better, if that will do an Admin than a poor, low, simple, plain, useless user. :-) Phoe 10:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Phoe, it's time to go POV: you are not a useless user, or any of the other adjectives you used!
But point taken about it being better done by an admin, so I have done s-jud and s-mil, too. Further comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization#Coloured_headings. --BrownHairedGirl 10:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I was joking :-) But thanks and nice work. It's always a little bit difficult for me to discuss or write longer texts, cause than I've to search soooo much in English dictionaries. :-) I don't want speak about the &§("§)" grammar. Thanks Phoe 10:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I thught you were joking, but I wasn't to agree that easily :)
I hadn't checked before, and hadn't realised you were German; your English is good that I'd never have guessed. --BrownHairedGirl 10:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, hm, I think I will copy this, will make it big, will print it and will hang it over my bed. Phoe 10:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories (British MPs, etc)

If dual classification were impossible, then I would definately say merge into the upper-level category. However, I don't believe it is impossible, in fact, I think it is encouraged in this circumstance. From Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories, Reasons for Duplication:

There are several good reasons for duplication. The basic principle is that the duplication makes it easier, and not harder, for users to find articles. This should guide the process for making the decision for or against duplication, and the decision might be different for different categories. It is not essential that there be consistency across all of Wikipedia's categories. It IS important that the duplication make sense for the subject matter. Here are some examples of cases when duplication made sense:
  • SECONDARY CATEGORIZATION METHODS When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well. This includes articles placed in ethnic subcategories within national menus, for example articles in Category:African American basketball players should also be left in Category:American basketball players.
  • Another example of this is Category:Bridges in New York City and Category:Toll bridges in New York City. ALL the toll bridges are listed in both categories. These situations come about when one hierarchy of categories (toll bridges in the United States) is a subset of another hierarchy of categories (Bridges in the United States). In a sense the subcategories are related categories and not actually part of the same hierarchy. It also makes it easier to see a complete list of the bridges in each location.

The duplication allows the smaller subdivisions to exist while maintaining a complete list in the parent category. When the guidelines are so clear I don't believe one user (Mais oui!) can be allowed to thwart consensus. Mais oui!'s edits regarding articles related to Scotland have been very aggressive (not that I disagree with the majority of them) and unilateral. This would only encourage and enbolden him/her further.--WilliamThweatt 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

William, thanks for your help in reaching agreement! Dual classoification as above is now implemented for the Scottish constituencies. --BrownHairedGirl 11:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that I've reverted some edits you made using AWB, adding politicians to the category for MPs representing Northern Ireland constituencies as they are already listed in the subcategory for MPs representing Belfast constituencies. Warofdreams talk 16:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi warof dreams, thanks for he message, but I'm disappointed that you did that. Dual classification is not forbidden, and in some cases is positively encouraged (see WP:SUBCAT). There has just been a lengthy discussion of this in a CFM on the equiavlent city-bsed subdivisions of Scottish MPs, which I withdrew when it was agreed that we would reatin the higher classification as well: see Wikipedia:Categories_for deletion#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_Scottish_constituencies. So I have restored those categories.
I know that some people don't use the category system in a way which makes the wider categories necessary, but others find it essential, and after a lot of discussion we reached a compromise on allowing the two systems to remain in parallel to facilitate both needs. Please can you leave the Northern Ireland category in place, and join in the discussion on Category talk:British MPs on how we sort out the categoriation of MPs, which I think most people agree needs a lot more work? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem; I wasn't aware of this debate when I reverted your changes. I'll take part in the discussion and won't make any further changes until there's a consensus. Warofdreams talk 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Warofdreams. I look forward to your widsom in helping us in the difficult job of unravelling this knot! --BrownHairedGirl 21:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have taken your place as nominator. Please do not let the intimidation you spoke of have effect. Currently there are 11 users who want the categories to be merged and just 6 against. Please come back and make it more decisive. We can still get rid of these useless cluttersome categories if we keep our spirits up. Athenaeum 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Athenaum, thanks for your message. I do appeciate the merits of the argument you and others make, and I accept your right to renominate. However, my main interest here is in building a consensus on a durable and comprehensive classification scheme for MPs, and beacuse there are several different ways in which people want to approach the classiication of something as important as parliament, it seems to me to be inevitable that a consenus will involve all parties accepting the inclusion of some categories which are of little use to them. (I do have concerns about the utility of the regionalised classifications, and of the viability of any regionalisation schemne when applied across two centuries of huge demographic change, but despite the limiations I'm not sure how much harm they do).
I think that the really good outcome so far is the acceptance by User:Mais oui! that there is room for more than one approach, and if you read the thread "mmmm...." on Main oui's talk page, I think that there is evidence of a bit of a change of heart, and a clear acknowledgement that too much aggression has been deployed. Maybe I'm too much of a pavlovian, but I think we all work better if we acknowledge and encurage that movement towards a consensual approach. --BrownHairedGirl 21:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
"I think that the really good outcome so far is the acceptance by User:Mais oui! that there is room for more than one approach". No, no, no!!! I fear that you have totally misunderstood me, probably from several months ago: I have not only "accepted", but have actually been a keen supporter, of a variety of ways of subcategorising the horrendously large jumble that is cat:British MPs!
I never partook in the discussions cos it was clear that several people there hated my guts. (The "hate my guts" impression has not been allayed by the frankly bizarre goings-on at CFD.) I support, and have always supported, categorising 1. by geography, 2. by party and 3. by parliamentary session. What I just cannot stand is the exclusionists who say: "my way is right, and yours is wrong". I really like the geog. system, cos I am tremendously intertested in local issues, and local biography (and not just politicians). You like the by session method: great! Another will be a party kind of guy. Great! We can all have our cake, and eat it! --Mais oui! 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I see your point, and I do understand that the categ system you devised is important for those interested in local issues ... but as per my comments on your talk page, I have some doubts that regionalisation can really be made to work. (I won't stand in the way of it, but I have my doubts!)
I hope though, that you'll bear with me while I say in as friendly a way as possible that your categorisation work has come across as exclusionist. It's been great talking to you, and I'm now quite sure that wasn't your intention, but by splitting Category:British MPs into only one (geographical) dimension, and removing them from the parent category, you took a huge step backwards for those who want to look at parliament as a whole. If that had been implemented in parallel to existing categories, there wouldn't have been such a problem, but the removal of the catch-all category took place before other categories were ready. That's why, when you rejected dual classification, I moved promptly to CFM. Luckily, that's largely history now, but I thonk it's a situation which could have been avoided by discussion before removing articles from the catch-all category.
There may indeed be some people who hate your guts; there are always some such people around.  :( But may I suggest that the difficulties you encounter could be largely avoided if you keep on working on the aggression problem you noted elsewhere, and worked with others towards consensus? I notice a very positive response to your contribution to the discussion on Category talk:British MPs and I'm sure there would be an equally positive response to further contributions in the same spirit. --BrownHairedGirl 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
A second CFM process has been started at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_2#Category:British_female_MPs by User:Mais oui!. I guess I don't want this to distract from the bigger process of categorising all MPs, but I have still made my point. It is worth noting that Mais oui! created the Female MPs by nation subcats but I hope this isn't now revenge on his part (it is strange to create subcats of a category you consider discriminatory though). Again, it may be worth pointing CFM readers back to the bigger debate at Category talk:British MPs. Martín (saying/doing) 16:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added my suggestion to the debate over the Parliament categories. Perhaps we should just categorise them by the first parliament in which they were elected, such as British MPs first elected in the 1992 to 1997 Parliament etc? Would this be a reasonable compromise? --Dovea 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to categorise the MP's into specific era's, such as 1885-1918, 1918-1945, 1945-1979 and 1979 to present. Dated mainly either around parliamentry reform bills (1885 & 1918) or specific historic changes in direction (1945 & 1979). Galloglass 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Two ideas interesting there:
  1. By when first elected. It's certainly durable, but I'm not sure that it gives a useful indication of a MP's career. Margaret Beckett, for example, was first elected in 1974, but her ministerial career has roughly tracked that of those elected twenty years later. Is it really meaningful to have her and Alan Johnson in separate categories?
  2. By era feels more promising, though I'm not really sure. The twentieth-century seems to me to have four clear political landmarks in parliament: 1910, 1945, 1979 and 1997, but that maybe a bit POV, and leaves rather unevenly-sized categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah but from my own perspective 1997 was just a continuation of what started in 1979 so no era change there ;) Galloglass 00:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Other people

Hi BrownHairedGirl,
I've noticed a few times lately you putting the {{otherpeople}} tagline at the top of articles with pre-disambiguated titles, such as William Jones (convict). There is no need for this. The tagline is only used when there is some possibility that the reader has been directed to an article other than what they wanted. Specifically, you would only use {{otherpeople}} on William Jones (convict) if there was some prospect of someone looking for some other "William Jones" and ending up there. But the only ways that someone can end up at article William Jones (convict) are:

  1. They typed in "William Jones (convict)" and pressed Go
  2. They followed a link to William Jones (convict), e.g. from the William Jones disambiguation page.

In both these cases, the user has been sent to the correct page. Therefore there is no need to have a disambiguation tagline. This is the case for all articles with disambiguated titles: they pretty much never need disambiguation taglines.
Snottygobble 23:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree strongly! There are plenty of other ways to get to such a page, and plenty of good reasons to use the {{otherpeople}} tag. See my lengthy reply to someone else who made the same p0int, at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_001#dab_pointers. --BrownHairedGirl 15:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I'm going to have to mirror John's response: "Fair enough; you've obviously thought about it, so I'm content". I think we probably need a guideline on this, but we don't, so we'll have to agree to disagree. See you 'round the 'pedia. Snottygobble 02:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Stan and Olly

We all get our syntax tangled occasionally, so I shouldn't laugh. But the opening sentence of this article is brilliant. Aside from the delightfully repeated words, it's good to know that death is no impediment to promotion :) --BrownHairedGirl 14:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There's been an election or three in the U.S. in which someone who'd died during the campaign got a lot of votes. In 2000 the (former) governor of Missouri, Democrat Mel Carnahan, beat the Republican incumbent U. S. Senator, John Ashcroft; the acting governor appointed his widow, who served in the U.S. Senate until she lost a special election in November 2002. (I do like the name Stan Olly; do you think he needs a disambiguation page before people find themselves in another fine mess? — OtherDave 22:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

MPs of the Nth Parliament

I see that you've been adding categories to various MPs, using AWB. However, the categories added to Norman Tebbit, for example, are clearly wrong; he retired from the Commons in 1992, so I see no real reason to apply the categories for MPs of the 51st-54th Parliaments to that page. Aside from Normo Tebbs, are there any others added in error that need to be fixed? DWaterson 23:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been using AWB to automatically add the 1983 tag only, to a list extracted from MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1987. The only tag automatically added is the 83-87 one, and since AWB is only semi-automated (each edit ha to be confirmed), I have manually added a full set of th appropriate tags for some MPs. Dunno waht happened with Tebbit; I mustn't have been concentrating on that one, but it's now corrected.
Hvaing tagged about 500 of that Parliament so far, I'm sure that there are some others with errors too. My experience of doing the same job with Category:Teachtaí Dála is that mistakes do creep in, but that they are fixable easily enough once the job is complete, by comparing the category listing with the list of members. This is still a work in progress, but thanks for pointing out that error. --BrownHairedGirl 07:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr Reid

It's ok. :) You learn something new every day. Lfh 09:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sian James (novelist)

Sorry, but I rolled back your change, because the disambiguation for Sian James is at the Sian James page, not Sian James (disambiguation). Deb 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. You are directing readers to a redirect page, which is a no-no. If you feel there is a need to have a link to the disambiguation page, then you must link to the actual disambiguation page. If this means you can't use the template, it's too bad. Deb 17:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Deb, where does all this "must" come from?
I think that you are allowing an useful rule-of-thumb to get in the way of a simple device for making wikipedia more useable for the reader and easier to maintain.
I am currently doing a big sift of British MPs: there are over 3,000 articles in there, with dozens o lists and other documents tying them together. The lack of dabpages, and of pointers to the dab pages that do exist, has made a big job much more difficult than it need be.
I can usually find the articles, eventually ... but gawd help the ordinary reader. They'll just give up. That's why I have become such a pedant about ensuring that when I edit a dabbed page, I take great care to check both that the dabpage is there and that the dablinks are there in a durable form.
Consider this scenario, which i have seen dozens of times in the last few days.
  • There are ten Sian Jameses, all dabbed at [[Sian James]]. Someone decides (usually wrobly) that another Sian James is more notable than all the others, so they move the dab page to create an article about their hero.
Hey presto, all the dablinks on the other pages are broken. And the person who creates the new article (usually about an obsure musician or a blogger) never bothers to go around fixing them. --BrownHairedGirl 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It's clear that there are a few conventions you are unfamiliar with. One is that you reply to people on their talk page, so that they get a message alert. Another is that you don't make links to redirect pages unless there's a reason to. You can make as many dab links as you like - I'm all in favour. But please make them to the correct pages, not to "(disambiguation)" pages that don't exist. Deb 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Deb, in common with other users who find it much more convenient to have a conversation all in one place. at the top of this page is a note saying clearly "if you leave a new message for me on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply somewhere else". Maybe that's not a convention you are aware of? Anyway, I'll leave anote on your talk.
As above, the link concerned is to the correct page: it is to a destination which will always take the reader to the dabpage, even if the undisambiguated page name is subsequently used for something else, and will never create a double redirect. I don't understand why you prefer a solution which will probably break, and considering that you are so vehement, I'm surprised that you can't cite any relevant guidelines or policies. Is WP:OWN relevant, perhaps? --BrownHairedGirl 20:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Linking to redirects is inherently inefficient. I can't understand why you are unwilling to make the small effort required to correct the link and make it lead to the disambiguation page.
Incidentally, putting a note at the top of your talk page (where, let's face it, not many people are likely to look) is not a "convention" - it is just something you have chosen to do for your personal convenience. Deb 11:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm told that redirects impose a neglible server load. And as to why not make it point directly, it's because that requires ongoing maintenance, whereas this mechanism doesn't. That's why replacing redirects that work is generally deprecated: the edit imposes a much higher server load than the direct.
Oh, and there are lots of uses with "reply here" notes at the top of their talk page, for everyone's convenience. --BrownHairedGirl 12:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brownhairedgirl, let’s start again, because I realise that I am probably coming across as being high-handed. Wikipedia has been here a long time, longer than either of us, and there are reasons for most of the conventions that exist – for example, the way disambiguation is handled. The straight name is used in preference to the "(disambiguation)" format, because it reduces the number of page hops required to get where you want to be. That’s a generalisation, of course, but that’s the reason. Innovation is good, and there are lots of things here that can be improved, but what you seem to be doing is trying to make extra work in order to cater for a situation that is very unlikely to happen – and indeed, it’s our job as admins to make sure it doesn’t happen. The system won’t be "broken" by one rogue user. Most pages are being watched by someone or other. In the case of the Sian James (novelist) article, it was automatically placed on my watchlist because I created it, but I don’t for one moment think that I own it. However, I do see it as my responsibility to keep it from being badly or wrongly edited. In order for your proposed solution to be the best one, every disambiguation page would have to be in the "(disambiguation)" format, but this is not the case. I know you understand how the software works, probably better than I do, and I’m certain you realise that creating lots of links to redirects has a cumulative effect on the load. If you want to put these disambiguation links on every article, I’ll be pleased to help with the effort, but they should link to the correct disambiguation page, which will vary. Are we on the same wavelength now? Deb 13:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest reply. But I'm afraid that we are still not on the same wavelength. :(
But really, I'm not creating any extra work. When I set up a dab page, I do it that way, via the xxx (disambiguation) page, with the dablink pointing through that redirect. That's already done for Sian Jones, so the only extra work involved would be if you now set about converting the dablinks on the other SJs. And if you do that, then if the Sian Jones page becomes an article in itself (with the dab being moved), then you need to edit the dablinks on every page that points to that page. Keeping Sian James (novelist) on you watchlist won't help: you need to have the Sian Jones page on your watchlist to be alerted that you need to make these changes.
With Sian Jones, that's not a big problem; but with something like William Brown or John Smith, it is -- there would be dozens of pages to be changed, which is why it usually doesn't get done.
Remember, the crucial point is that redirects are cheap on the server, but edits are not. And edits are also heavy on the editors, who may not even spot the changes when they pop up on their watchlists (my watchlist has about 5,000 pages on it: if I'm away for a few days, I miss them). --BrownHairedGirl 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I correct spelling mistakes?

I notice words (e.g. particularly) being misspelled (paticularly). I invite the go button to find instances of paticularly and there are 100 such pages. Is there (a) a robot which can be told to travel through and correct them all? Even better, is there a page (such as CfD) where one can post such errors? - Kittybrewster 10:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kitty, I think that several people are using AWB to trawl for a bundle of common typos, and I'd be surprised if it's not on the list. Im sure I have seen some discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser, so you coukd ask there and see if that's on the list. I fear that it may be one of my regular typos, so it ought to be! --BrownHairedGirl 10:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Some peerages - replied on my talk page. - Kittybrewster 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

{{UK-current-MP-stub}}

Hi BrownHairedGirl.

I've posted a reply to WP:SFD. I've withdrawn the nomination, but I still don't like the word "current" for this kind of material. Unfortunately, I have no better alternative to suggest. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :)
The termonology in this area is a nightmare, as evidenced by the tangle we have gotten into over MPs-by-Paraliament categorisation :( --BrownHairedGirl 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed the article on Sir Winston Churchill, and I think I see what you mean. Regarding the sig, I think I nicked the code somewhere, but I don't really remember where. Anyway, it is quite easy to make: Go to your User preferences, tick "raw signature" and enter this in the "Signature" box:
 [[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]]</sup>

That that'll do the trick :) If you see a sig you like, you can pretty easily modify it for your own use the same way (I'll also be glad to help.) Cheers. Valentinian (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I tweaked it a bit further too :) -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl,

I must admit that, like Valentinian, I don't like the use of the word "current" - also the category is a problem - especially since we're in the middle of discussing how to split the UK-MP stubs (by era, by party, or by some other means). Splitting by party seems to have slightly more support at the moment, and if that were to go ahead, having this one split off by era will be a problem. As such, I'm not really keen to change my vote, but (as is the case in such unproposed splits that go against another current proposal) would expect any final decision on this category to he held over until after some decision has been made on the overall MP split. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

James Arbuthnot - dates in the first constituency box are now broken - Kittybrewster 21:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Chicheley

Hello. Sorry to bring this up but I could not help notice you are having a lot of problems with this individual around your UK MPs category in particular. Like many other people (if you study his talk page and his "contributions" to the discussion processes), I also have had problems with him.

I notice that in his discussion with you he states: "There is no sign of a consensus for it here. This shows that categorisation needs input from people who understand categories, and cannot be left to subject specialists, who are likely to overestimate the importance of minor aspects of their field of interest."

In another discussion where I proposed a merger of useless sub-categories within one main category and where I had prior consensus from the project concerned, Chicheley stated that our "consensus" was invalid and that we were attempting a "fait accompli". He stated his total opposition to consensus within organised projects and effectively claimed that he as "the categorisation expert" knows more about how to categorise any project than mere project members (including some who are experts) can ever do.

Elsewhere he has carried out what amount to hit and run insults. Then, when someone objects to his tone or his remarks, he claims he has been abused, etc.

I realise that as you have direct involvement with this person, it is improper of me to suggest that you as an admin should take action against him but I really do believe that some action should be taken and I would be interested to know your views about the matter.

It seems clear to me that this person, who suspiciously is "relatively new" to WP, is deliberately seeking to disrupt the categorisation process and that, with his changes of tune re consensus for example, he is behaving erratically. The real concern is that relatively few people bother to get involved in deletion discussions and so his statements must have some impact on outcomes.

I think that the statement which I have quoted above, given his total opposition to project consensus elsewhere, indicates clearly that he is actively working against the basic principles of WP which is to provide information and knowledge for its readers. That is surely best achieved by having knowledgeable and interested people working on projects and allowing them to not only provide content but also to structure it in a form that they believe will help the reader. The activities of this person are diametrically opposite to that aim and I have found him to be deliberately disruptive to both of the two projects I am trying to improve.

If there is anything that can be done to curb his activities, I am more than happy to contribute.

All the best. --BlackJack | talk page 10:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes (again)

Do you still know me? :-) A small note regarding the s-reg - succession boxes: the use of s-reg|uk, s-reg|en or s-reg|gb does not go by it when the person held the title, but when the title was created. For an example see [2]. If you don't know which one is the right for the respective title , look at the categories; the required peerage stands mostly there. Greetings Phoe 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phoe, of course I still know you! Thanks for the tip. I think I knew that, but I guess i didn't check properly on George Douglas-Hamilton, 10th Earl of Selkirk. Sorry, and thanks for fixing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Away

I am taking a short wiki-break, and do not expect to be available over the next two weeks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [3]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I just noticed the Wikipedia entry for my local MP, and was curious to who had authored the page. I then came across your page, and the huge list of contributions to Wikipedia - how do you find the time to do so much!

John (jbaker@dryfish.org.uk)

Cayzer Baronets

... seem to be numbered 1, 1 and 1 ... I don't understand why. - Kittybrewster 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Try now, I think I got it. To see how, here's the diff.
BTW, hope you won't mind me pointing out that your edit summary count is very low -- only 3% for major edits. WP:ES explains better than I could why they are important! --BrownHairedGirl 14:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
As you'll see, if you leave blank lines betwen the hashed lines, the para numbering is restarted. --BrownHairedGirl 14:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[[4]] - Kittybrewster 01:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Baronets

Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies 11:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Prime minister (sic)

You might be interested in a RM going on at talk:Prime minister (sic). Some individuals moved the page to that ridiculous name (if it stays at that form WP will be a laughing stock!) Feel free to contribute to the debate if you wish. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild

Hi, welcome back. Concerning your revert of my correction on the succession box of this article I would like to inform you that User:Galloglass had inspired me to that. :-) User_talk:Phoe#Member_for. It seems that there were a discussion about the style on these boxes, that we both hadn't seen. Greetings Phoe 15:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Francis Mackenzie, 1st Baron Seaforth

Please improve. - Kittybrewster 09:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir James Campbell, 2nd Baronet of Ardkinglass

Please improve. - Kittybrewster 08:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

otherpeople disambiguation tag

You added the tag {{otherpeople|John Gilbert}} to John Gilbert (bushranger) - given disambiguation is already part of the article title, I don't believe a disambiguation header is appropriate;I think it is only appropriate for an article where no other disambuguation occurs and it is possible that the reader has come there by accident and may be looking for another person - if they have come to an article with bushranger in the title, they are unlikely to be looking for the Baron Gilbert (ie John Gilbert, Baron Gilbert), similarly those looking for the bushranger are unlikely to be accidentally at the Baron article. If you type in John Gilbert you end up at the disambiguation page. Hence I have reverted your edits and merged the disambiguation pages.--Golden Wattle talk 21:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! As noted on your talk, I hope you'll forgive me for replying here, but I find that a conversation is easier to follow if it's all in one place.
(The rest of this is an edited and expanded update from a previous reply on this subject: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_001#dab_pointers).
This is a discussion which seems to pop up periodically, and I always find myself thinking that maybe some people take too wiki-centric a view of how Wikipedia is used.
It seems to me that many users will not start on wikipedia, they'll start with a search engine such as Google; and chances are these days that a wikipedia entry will appear at the top of the list. They may find in the article title a clue about which particular person the page in question describes, or they may not. If the page is entitled "John Q. Smith", that probably won't tell them whether it's the right John Smith, and a term such as "baron" may be more helpful to some, but not to others such as me who may not know the UK peerage system, and only know from reading the very clear introductory sentence that it's about a politician.
The problem is that the introductory sentence may not be one that Google displays in the excerpt, so it may not be available when deciding whether to view the page — and the dab page will rarely get to the top of google.
So the way I see it is that far from it being dificult, it's actually quite easy for a user can to end up on the wrong page when the article name is even a bit ambiguous. And once they get there, they may not even know that there ought to be a dab page.
The {{otherpeople}} hatlink takes little enough screenspace and mental bandwidth for the reader that it's no impediment to a user who doesn't need it — but it will be very useful to anyone who does.
Some pages may needs the hatlink more than others, but even where it isn't essential, it may be interesting to have a direct link to a list of other people of the same name. It may be useful to some and interesting to others, which is why I added it to all the John Gilberts.
Aditionally, as more articles get created for John Gilberts, the more likely it is that the user will end up with he wrong one. Not many names will be as widely used as John Smith, but a name gets to the stage of having more than one John Gilbert in a particular profession, the more important it becomes to have an easy way or fnding the others. As an example of that, see the links to John Gilbert], and you'll see several relating to films. Take a look at an IMDB search for John Gilbert, and you'll see no less than 19 of them ... so even dabs such as John Gilbert (actor) will start to be uninformative if we create articles for more of those people.
The reason for using the {{Otherpeople}} tag to point to the John Gilbert (disambiguation) page is to simplify maintenance. By pointing the dabs to John Gilbert (disambiguation), with a {{R to disambiguation page}} redirect, it's easy to cope with the situation of needing to move one particularly prominent John Gilbert to the main article name: all the dablinks will still work. You might say that if that happens, the dablinks should be updated, but unfortunately that rarely happens, and every day or two I encounter several articles which have been very poorly disambiguated or where disambiguation has been broken.
In summary, there are lots of ways in which these dablinks can help, and they take so little space that they do no harm. Why not let them stand? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your explanation. Understand the point of the disambiguation page pointing to the John Gilbert page. I don't like unnecessary headers as I think they distract from the article content and are a form of instruction creep. Obviously you and Gene Nygaard are like minded in the opposite direction. However, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Linking to a primary topic does seem to support my view by stating When a page has "(disambiguation)" in the title, users are unlikely to stumble on it by accident. They will get there by clicking on a link from the primary topic article, by searching, or by directly typing its URL. and suggests that the otheruses tag is used for links from the main article. Perhaps the matter should be referred to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation to seek wider concensus.--Golden Wattle talk 22:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply.
I had always read that part of WP:MOSDAB as implying that an {{otheruses}} (or similar) tag would be needed on the main article page, not as offering any comment on its use elsewhere. The point is that unless it is there, the dab page is effectively hidden, but I can't read that as deprecating other links to the dab page.
As to the rest, I'm afraid that I can't agree that those are unnecessary headers, or that they are distracting: as long as they are concisely written and correctly formatted, they seem to me to take much less visual precedence than the opening para, and can be easily skipped. I only find such headers distracting once they start to occupy a complete line. I deplore verbose headers, some of which seem to be mini-articles, and those really are distracting.
Anyway, if you'd like to refer this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, please feel free! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Evans

Please would you delete Christopher Evans and then rename Chris Evans as Christopher Evans. - Kittybrewster 13:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your wish is my command! :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that! Yes please. I think the broadcaster should take on the Chris Evans slot. - Kittybrewster 15:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
And lo! ... with another wave of her wand ... it is so! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

James Alexander Stewart-Mackenzie

Please would you enhance this stub in your usual magic manner. :) - Kittybrewster 23:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's done, tho I'm not sure that it's very magical! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Everything you do is magical. But I revised the Thomas Mackenzie link, hoping I was right to do so. - Kittybrewster 21:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the flattery!
You were right not to leave the link pointing to Thomas Mackenzie, but [[Thomas Mackenzie, MP]] is not the usual format for a name, so I changed it to Thomas Mackenzie, Scottish politician. I had checked for other articles on people called Thomas Mackenzie, and found two of them, so I created a disambiguation page at Thomas Mackenzie and listed all the TKs. Hope it all looks OK to you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Need Help :)

Hiya. have a small prob that I need sorting. Created a page the other day: Liverpool Abercomby (UK Parliament constituency) before I noticed today I'm missed the 'r' out of Abercromby so moved and merged it with the correct page but am left still with the badly spelled one. Hoping you can sort it and get rid of it for me. Cheers Galloglass 11:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Done! Sorry about the delay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for getting rid of my worst spelling mistake this year BrownHairedGirl. Cheers Galloglass 23:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

British administrators

[[Category:British colonial governors and administrators]]
seems to overlap
:[[Category:Administrators in British India]].

- Kittybrewster 09:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kittyb, thanks for that pointer! Cat:Administrators in British India is a sub-category of Cat:British colonial governors and administrators. However, I'm not sure that it would be appropriate to use the subcat in this case.
Ceylon is generally defined as being part of the Indian subcontinent, but I don't think that it's all appropriate to regard it as part of India. Unfortunately, there is no guidance at Cat:Administrators in British India as to whether the category should be taken as referring to India or to the Indian subcontinent. So I looked at the parent categories: Cat:Administrators in British India is sub-category of Cat:British rule in India, whose parent categories refer to India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Punjab … but not Sri Lanka. So I think that it would be inpapropriate to put Stewart-Mackenzie James Alexander Stewart-Mackenzie in Cat:Administrators in British India; what do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I take your point re JAS-M; I was thinking more generally. These cats and sub-cats sometimes get very unwieldy and over-large. And new ones are being invented all the time. - Kittybrewster 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lords of Parliament

These are the Scottish equivalent of barons. See Lord of Parliament, and Claud Hamilton, 1st Lord Paisley for an individual properly placed in that category. BTW, I noticed you removing the Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies from a member of the Parliament of Great Britain; are you creating equivalent categories for that Parliament? Choess 20:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia entry about me

Hello. My name is Martin Horwood and I'm a British Lib Dem MP. You've posted some comments on the Wikipedia page about me which I think are pretty fair. You question whether the article has a NPOV (I think I'm getting the Wiki jargon gradually here) and as most of it has come from my website, I can see your point. I didn't originate the article but did edit it myself at one point to bring it up to date. Being human, I didn't really go to great lengths to make it less sympathetic in tone. Obviously I think it's potentially very helpful for me, my constituents and others to have a balanced article, but not really being famous enough to have much impartial commentary written about me, I'm not sure how to go about correcting the situation. Any ideas? Martin

Well hopefully other people can/will read the article and see what can be done to ensure the neutrality. Other than it matching the website I didn't see anything that looks obviously biased but I'll re-read. It would help if you registered and then used ~~~~ to sign your messages so we can reply back directly to you rather than on this page. It is also expected that if people do edit their own article they put a reference to that fact on the article talk page. (see William Arbuthnot) Alci12 15:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:MPs of the 53rd UK Parliament (2001-2005) etc.

I gave up on following the discussion, so I didn't know this had been decided. Ranges of dates usually need an en-dash: (2001–2005). Is this not possible with page titles? And was is decided the years were essantial in the category name, as opposed to just Category:MPs of the 53rd UK Parliament?

I'm surprised certain users don't insist it's Category:Members of Parliamant of the 53rd United Kindgom Parliament from English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh constituencies ;) JRawle (Talk) 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi JRawle, see this week's discussion at Category_talk:British_MPs#MPs_by_Parliament. The years are there because the sesson numbers are not widely known, thugh I wouldn't be miffed if that was later changed. As to en-dashes, putting them in categories would make the cats a pain to type, so as far as I know they are not usually used in article titles because they will be encoded, and be pain to type (though I can't find any guidance in WP:MOS#Article_titles or related pages).
I do hope that the new categories will not be subcatted. I don't think it would help to have Category:Female Labour MPs of the 53rd United Kindgom Parliament from Welsh constituencies etc. :) --BrownHairedGirl 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I spotted a couple of mistakes in the new cats on certain pages on my watchlist - Humfrey Malins and Herbert Williams. I didn't mind at all sorting them out but what made it a lot easier to spot the mistake and work out which categories were needed in their complicated careers was having the dates in the category title. Perhaps in the longer term the dates should be removed, but whilst you're doing this huge and valuable piece of work, it's inevitable that some mistakes will be made and I think they're helpful for now. Martín (saying/doing) 10:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Jonathan Aitken is shown in categories as MP for several parliaments. James Arbuthnot is not. How do we make these consistent and which is the official line? I wouldn't mind learning how to use a bot for this sort of stuff. If you can guide me through it, I am on msn messenger at kittybrewster@hotmail.com - Kittybrewster 08:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Umm, Arbuthnot was not in those categories because you removed them on 23 August. Those categories are undergoing some restructuring (long story), but no need to remove them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Reginald Hanson

Magic dust please. - Kittybrewster 23:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Done a few days ago (see diff), sorry for not adding note at the time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool (UK Parliament constituency)

Hi BrownHairedGirl, Having a problem with a user called 'MinedOutOffHisPiste'. He/She has created a new category for 'Historic Constituencies of Liverpool' which is fair enough but to do so he/she has removed 'Historic Constituencies of England' to do so from both Liverpool and all the other historic liverpool constituencies - abercromby etc. I re- added the England category being careful not to remove his/her new category and messaged the person that 'Historic Constituencies of England' was important and would they be more carefull in future.

'MinedOutOffHisPiste' has immediately gone back to all these pages, at least 7 of them and removed the 'Historic Constituencies of England' category from all of them as a 'redundant category'

Now I'm not willing to get into a revert war with this individual so I will not go and do any changes myself but am hoping you and/or other Admins can convince them of the relevance of our categories. Or if not, then take other measures.

Thanks Galloglass 23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I also informed you I had added the cat Historic Constituencies of England to the new cat Historic Constituencies of Liverpool. So the heirachy is intact and all the information is still in the top level, it is just means that if it was done for all areas it would be easier to navigate. I think it is Galloglass that is the problem user.--MinedOutOffHisPiste 00:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
As Ive already said to you MinedOutOffHisPiste I prefer to leave it to the admins to decide rather than get into a slanging match with you. I'm sure we all trust BrownHairedGirl and the other Admins to come up with a reasonable solution. Galloglass 00:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll be waiting for you to apologies for you bullying behaviour.--MinedOutOffHisPiste 08:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi you two, I think I can see a solution to this. I have to go out now, but I will reply properly this evening. In the meantime, please could you desist from any edit-warring? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply.
I have thought for some time that Cat:Historic parliamentary constituencies in England has gotten too big, and that it would be more useful for it to be split along the same geographical boundaries as Cat:Parliamentary constituencies in England. I suggested this last month at Category talk:Historic parliamentary constituencies in England#Split_this_category.3F, but no takers so far.
My take on it, is that MinedOutOffHisPiste was right to want to split the category, but chose the wrong split: it would be much better to use the same naming pattern, so that (in this instance) Abercromby (UK Parliament constituency) would be in Cat:Parliamentary constituencies in the North West (historic), which is itself a subcat of both Cat:Historic parliamentary constituencies in England Cat:Parliamentary constituencies in the North West. As you will see, I have already created Cat:Parliamentary constituencies in the North West (historic), and moved Abercromby into it.
I can see the logic behind creating Cat:Historic parliamentary constituencies of Liverpool, but it seems to me to be pity to introduce a new geographical framework into the UK constituencies categories.
Does this seem acceptable to you both?
If it is, I propose to do a CFD for Cat:Historic parliamentary constituencies of Liverpool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be fine by me BrownHairedGirl. As regards the specific Liverpool sub category on the 'Category:Liverpool' page, if MinedOutOffHisPiste could create a specific 'Liverpool Constituencies' sub category on that page for ALL the Liverpool seats, both modern and Historic, that would be of immense use to users. Thanks once again Galloglass 16:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm do not North West is specific enough, whilst Liverpool may be to specific. Do the seat match county boundaries? I'd be tempted to leave the historic and add a current cat and make them both subcats of Liverpool constituencies. It is important to seperate current from historic.--MinedOutOffHisPiste 22:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Justified deletion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_Peter_Singer&curid=7078613&diff=79215790&oldid=78857123 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Singer (talk • contribs) 12:34, 3 October 2006.

Yes, I think it is justified to remove that. F4J is acampign group, and the F4J article to which the link points represents F4J's POV. The phrase "best remembered" needs more neutral sources if its usage is to be justified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I left a number of comments on Peter Singer's talk page over concerns that they are writing their own biography. I've also blocked the user per WP:USERNAME - just so we can be sure we're dealing with the actual person themself. Thanks/wangi 13:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi wangi, I was just writing a comment there when your comments appeared, so I have appended mine to User talk:Peter Singer#Your_username. As you'll see, I suspect that this may be someone pretending to be Sir Peter Singer, in order to do some attacks. But I see you've got there :) Well done blocking the a/c --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference to constituencies by election

Hi,

I notice you have been referring in several constituencies to boundary changes taking place 'for the 1955 election' and so forth. I think this is misleading - the election changes would have taken place before the election was called and therefore although they were created in advance of the election, they would have been used in any subsequent election, if available.

For example, the 1969 redistribution was not used in the 1970 election, but first in the 1974 elections.

I would suggest a different approach - I am thinking of creating pages for each of the redistributions I have information on (1885, 1918, 1948, 1954 and 1969) and the constituency entries could then link to those. My plan is at this stage only to have a general summary of the effects of each redistribution but there could be a detailed breakdown of the constituencies created (or at least a summary of new and disappeared seats, though I am wary of creating any more lists of constituencies ...).

What do you think? There is already a page for the 1885 redistribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_Seats_Act_1885

Rbreen 21:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you have a good point about the phrasing, but that my phrasing is clearer than yours. :) Let me explain why, and see what you think.
Essentially, what happens (as I understand it) is that the the relevant law provides the new constitituencies will be used for the first election to be held after the Act enters into force. So the most accurate phrasing would be something like:
boundary changes enacted under the 1975 Act, which entered into force in 1976, and were first used for the 1977 general election
(those dates are fictitious, of course)
... and what I have tried to do is to summarise that phrase as:
boundary changes enacted under the 1975 Act, which entered into force in 1976, and were first used for the 1977 general election
I think that referring briefly to the 1969 Act could be misleading to the reader, because the casual reader would then assume that these changes had taken effect at the 1970 election ... and for these purposes, what matters is when the changes took effect. The rest is detailed background, because for the ordinary voter, they won't notice the boundary changes until an election is called.
I think that your idea of a page for each set of boundary changes is a very good idea, and in that case, I would suggest a phrasing something like: boundary changes for the 1977 election (under the [[1975 Act]]).
That would allow the reader to go and look more closely at the process, and see that the boundary commission was began its review in 1969, reported in 1973, which led to an Act in 1975, etc.
Does that make sense? And whaddaya think?
BTW, if you are looking at this stuff, are you aware of List of former United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies? It might be a good starting point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Holden

Hey, would like to point you on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage#Location_2. Your move of Sir Isaac Holden, 1st Baronet is correct, cause there is another baronet with the same for- and surname (and than this form is necessary to disambiguate them). But reading your summary I think you did that move to add his baronetcy to the article's name (what we generally should not do ... unless it is for disambiguation). Greetings Phoe 09:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

References

Oh this seems to be new. Two or three weeks ago there wasn't a consensus for that. Before it was handled like External link - External links Wikipedia:External_links#.22External_links.22_vs_.22External_link.22. Maybe it will come a rule for this in next time too. However thanks for your notice, Madame :-) Yes it is actually superfluous, but if there are stub-tags on an article, the Rayment or 1911-templates will go down. So I think, the better way to make them visible is it to put them under a Reference ...erm sorry... References-header. Phoe 14:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

James Callaghan

Heyho, can you maybe revert the moves of James Callaghan (born 1927) and James Callaghan (1912-2005)? I think they are very unreasonable (especially in the case of the Primeminister). Thanks Phoe 23:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC) PS: It may interesting for you, that the same User (who did these moves) changed categories, you had changed before... still Phoe 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Phoe! Have fixed the Callaghans, but looking at that user's contribs list, there are a lot of other reverts to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Go raibh míle maith agat (Hope it is correct) Phoe 19:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Tá fáilte romhat :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert James Loyd-Lindsay, 1st Baron Wantage

I am confused by the multiple members for Berkshire. Please revise succession box. - Kittybrewster 23:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Howzat? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks great. Thank you. - Kittybrewster 00:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrator who is causing chaos

Special:Contributions/Icairns is opposed to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage#Location_2 - Kittybrewster 10:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you start by raising it yourself with User:Icairns, and if you can't reach agreement, take the discussions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Peerage, where other peerage experts can join in? I think it's better for these things to be resolved without admin intervention unless a stalemate is reached, and Icairns may not even know about the project's guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I have written a note on his talk page. Where is the "avoiding honorifics" page please? - Kittybrewster 11:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other_non-royal_names. However, item #6 on that list supports the WikipiProjectPeerage's guidance on Baronets. Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I am slowly creating a list from his contribution page. But I shake like a leaf because of Parkinson's and my feeling is that he should revert them all. - Kittybrewster 12:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Henry Holland, 1st Viscount Knutsford

please would you S-reg this. - Kittybrewster 12:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

Would you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style, where I'm trying to settle on a standardized succession box for Parliament? There's some minor variation in the styles now being used, and developing a consensus would save some work. Choess 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Have replied there, but I think you have raised this issue in the wrong place, which is why no-one replied. The constituencies project is just that, about constituencies, whereas the point just you raise is about MPs. May I suggest that you move the discussion to Category talk:British MPs? That's where you are most likely to find people who edit articles on MPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. I've put up a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines so we have a place to house examples and guidelines. I'll announce it at the category talk page, too. Feel free to add on or make changes. Choess 22:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wagon Wheel (biscuit)

Hi. Hope you wouldn't mind taking a look at this Afd and seeing if you think I've gone OTT in calling a speedy keep. Thanks --Dweller 16:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The only OTT action on that issue was in speedy deleting the article in the first place! Have added my vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! --Dweller 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Please stop moving pages. Your moves are against current concensus and policy. Until you succede in changing policy I will consider any such moves to be vandalism, and persue further duspute resolution action. Joe D (t) 12:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Joe, it's abundantly clear from the discussions that there is no consensus, and no fixed policy. When here is an ongoing dispute, please stop making misplaced accusations of vandalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Edwards

I notice that you have added the otherpeople tag to the top of the various Robert Edwards articles. The problem with this is that it has created double redirects which are expensive. If a DMB is needed, and I am not sure that it is, would it not be better to create a direct redirect to Robert Edwards? BlueValour 22:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it's only a single redirect, isn't it? The dablink points to Robert Edwards (disambiguation), which is a redirect to Robert Edwards, and as I understand it, redirects are cheap in server load terms:
There are two reasons for doing it this way
  1. It helps those checking for inadvertent links to disambiguation pages, by avoiding cluttering those pages with incoming links. What I have done with the various Robert Edwardses creates one incoming link to Robert Edwards, from Robert Edwards (disambiguation). This is the recommended ay of doing it:
    From WP:DAB: To link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as, America (disambiguation)). This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones.
  2. If one of the Robert Edwardses becomes so prominent that they needs to be moved to the main unqualified article name at Robert Edwards, then the dab page will be moved to Robert Edwards (disambiguation) ... so none of the dablinks on the articles needs to be changed. This matters, because while redirects are cheap in terms of server load, editing pages is much heavier on the server (as well as being extra work for the human editors).
As to why to have those links, there, see above at otherpeople disambiguation tag. I'd add to that the point that in this case, having Rob Edwards (footballer) and Rob Edwards (football player) is a good illustration of how an article title may easily lead to the user ending up at the wrong page. The more articles with the same base title, the more important it becomes to have a link back to the dab page.
Hope this makes sense! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Very convincing! Thank you. BlueValour 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Conservative or Unionist party tags in Scotland

Just added this discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies page. Any input from yourself would be greaty appreciated. Thanks. Galloglass 12:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)