User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2016/January

Category:Honourary Knights of the Teutonic Order

I'm afraid you've misspelled "honorary". Opera hat (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be correct - "archaic spelling", according to wiktionary:honourary. I've adjusted the matter according to your note. Thanks. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your unilateral move of Fort St. Angelo, and sock puppetry

You may have noticed on Talk:Fort St. Angelo that a previous move request was opposed and ultimately closed as no consensus to move. You did the right thing by re-opening a request; however, you then made the move on your own before the discussion was closed. That's not right. In addition, there's a sockpuppet investigation open because the same anon IP voted to support all 5 of your requested moves at the same time, about 14 hours after you made all 5 requests.

In the future, do not make the move before the discussion is closed, and do not use an anon IP to vote for your own move requests. Rockypedia (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Accusation of "sock puppetry" not validated. Please consider reliefing Wikipedia from false accusations. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Lord Lyon

Hello, why did you remove the 3 categories - Category:Scottish court systems, Category:Heraldic authorities, Category:Public bodies of the Scottish Government? It is part of the court system; it is an heraldic authority; and it is a public body of the Scottish Government. Kiltpin (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Likely because of abundancy; already categorised in parent category. Could you please provide a link to the specific edit in question? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Court_of_the_Lord_Lyon&curid=30876237&diff=697891176&oldid=678773319

Abundancy makes no sense. It is in its own parent category, but that category is but a child category to the other three. Please revert. Kiltpin (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Category:Court of the Lord Lyon is already categorised. Why would you want the categorisation to be duplicated in the article (other than the conventional time of establishment categorisation etc.)? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Is it possible that you don't understand how categorisation works? I am not going to argue with you. I have reverted, as you don't want to. Kiltpin (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually you're making me a little incertain on this issue. Do you have any link to established policies on the issue? Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That is not the way it works and well you know it. If you do not know it, then you should not be editing till such time as you do know it. Many articles have multiple categories - some dozens and dozens. I am reverting back to the status quo. If you want to remove categories from an established and stable article, it is up to you to provide references, not me. Kiltpin (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Multiple categories tend to be limited to one level in the category tree. I haven't really seen a consistent application of the principle you're mentioning, nor the principle stated per se. So I'm still uncertain. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You prove my point. The categories you deleted are all different trees not part of the same tree. One example of multiple trees, each as valid as the next - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II

I am not going to argue any further, but will revert any deletions by you to this article, that do not have proper reasoning and write-ups and consensus on the talk page. Kiltpin (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, as for biographical articles, I recognise that category duplication most often seem to be conventional (compare Category:Elizabeth. You may keep it that way in this case. However, are you sure that's also the case for institutions like the above? Where is the rule stated, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Roman Catholic diocese of Stockholm

I notice this navbox (apart from the title link) is still all, entirely, redlinks. It is therefore pointless, since the purpose of a navbox is to enable navigation between existing articles. See WP:NAV. Unless editors can see that someone is making an effort to create new articles for these links, your template is liable to be deleted. Regards, NSH002 (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Now contents have been updated. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Franz, Duke of Bavaria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Bavaria''' ([[German]]: ''Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern''), born 14 July 1933), is head of the [[House of Wittelsbach]], the former ruling family of the [[Kingdom of Bavaria]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ordination of women may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• __P3P.HTM |title=Code of Canon Law |publisher=Vatican.va |date= |accessdate=2010-11-19}}</ref>) and the ''[[Catechism of the Catholic Church]]'' (1992), by the canonical statement: "Only a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Latin Union

Template:Latin Union has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. NSH002 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

SMOM template

Hi Chicbyaccident, Well done on creating the Template:Sovereign Military Order of Malta. I have a couple of ideas/suggestions as to which other articles should be included in the template:

• major battles/sieges, such as the Siege of Rhodes (1522) and the Great Siege of Malta
• the navy of the Order of Saint John
• the Hospitaller colonization of the Americas
• other GM's palaces, such as Palazzo Vilhena, Verdala Palace and San Anton Palace
• other major fortifications, such as the Fortifications of Rhodes, Birgu and Valletta, Fort Saint Elmo, Fort Ricasoli etc (this list would be quite long)

It is obviously impossible to include every Hospitaller-related article in the template, so the question is where do we draw the line? What are your views/suggestions?

Regarding the Template:Forts in Malta, I removed the flags from near each individual fort, and added them near the century they were built.

Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and thanks also to you for your great contributions not least relating to Malta! Please let me suggest to proceed the discussion on Template talk:Sovereign Military Order of Malta, in order to make it easier for other users to contribute. I'll give you a reply over there, if you don't mind. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Categorization

This[1] edit of yours puts Wikipedia administration pages under Category:Articles. Please explain and/or re-revert. If you look at other Wikipedia administration categories you will see that they are not normally placed under article categories. DexDor ^(talk) 20:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. You are right in the rule. But as far as I know, it was placed in that category by some other user before you and me. I guess the idea was to let the categorised content be categorised in a proper way. Please help with that. If you cannot, I would urge you to let the information be accessible the way it is, since a lot of articles categorised and subcategorised there are suitable to have at hand for anyone who comes across this category "behind the scenes". Hope that makes sense. Again, please feel free to rename and/or recategorise so everything is in proper order, but don't delete the link altogether? Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That makes no sense. E.g. "it was placed in that category by some other user before you and me" is incorrect - it was you[2]. "to let the categorised content be categorised in a proper way" - the point is that it's not the proper way to categorize (talk pages, user pages etc don't belong in Category:Articles). The articles category is linked to the WikiProject - via the talk page - i.e. the way we normally do it in Wikipedia - why do you think ODM should be different? DexDor ^(talk) 06:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As for the categorisation, to make myself clear I meant the subcategories, meaning that other users categorised stuff there which I agree would be more suitable in the Category:Articles root. Anyway, well, alright. You got me, I accept your arguments. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)