User talk:Ravenpuff/Archives/2023/July

mos:%

Ravenpuff, i just wanted to let you know, in case you weren't already aware, that mos:% was recently updated in response to this discussion [perm]. i have basically interpreted this update as a general allowance to use the symbol in prose, even outside technical matters. this is one of the reasons why i had deliberatedly left the symbols alone in the lung cancer blurb. in addition, the lung cancer article itself is actually rather technical, and uses the symbol more than 50 times (and the word "percent" only once, at the start of a caption), so the stylistic choice to use the word in the blurb admittedly feels rather incongruous to me. is there a different standard regarding the use of the symbol specifically in tfa blurbs? dying (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dying: Thanks for letting me know of the update. I don't have particularly strong feelings either way, but it's a common practice in many (non-scientific) publications to write out "percent" / "per cent" in prose, since words are generally clearer and more intelligible than abbreviations or symbols. There isn't a different standard as regards TFA, apart from that stylistic choices normally follow those used in the featured article, but given that the symbol appears only a couple of times it seemed like it would read better if spelled out.

On a related note, regarding TFA captions: I think that including contextual information can often be helpful, e.g. if a photo was taken decades before the event under consideration, but my opinion is that occupations and duplicate links are generally unhelpful if these are already available in the blurb. Other Main Page captions are almost always short, most often just a name. Nothing wrong with slight incongruities, of course, but just thought I would say something about the philosophy behind my own TFA edits. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Ravenpuff/Archives/2023!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Rt Hon and Barons

Hi, according to official UK government websites, Baron does not automatically confer the title of The Right Honourable. If you have other sources that say otherwise, I'm interested in seeing them. Here's what I've found re: Lord Johnson of Lainston.

"* Use Rt Hon. for members who are Privy Counsellors." https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/how-to-address-a-lord/

Here's a member of the House of Lords who is also on the PC whom they refer to a The Right Honourable: "Lord Dholakia's full title is The Rt Hon. the Lord Dholakia OBE DL. His name is Navnit Dholakia, and he is a current member of the House of Lords." https://members.parliament.uk/member/2685/career And here they do not refer to Lord Johnson the Right Honorable and say: "Lord Johnson of Lainston's full title is The Lord Johnson of Lainston CBE." https://members.parliament.uk/member/4949/contact

To further prove this, here is the personnel for the Department of Business and Trade: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-and-trade#Our-ministers:~:text=of%20information%20releases-,Our%20ministers,-The%20Rt%20Hon Only The Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch has that title. Because she's the only member of the Privy Council listed. Everyone else, including Lord Johnson, is listed without.

Lord Johnson is simply listed as Lord Johnson on these websites.

Here for the Department of Transport, where two of the five ministers listed have Rt Hon added (yet the second ranking doesn't because he's not on privy council). Additionally, the Baroness, who has the same title as Lord Johnson, does not have Rt Hon added. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport#:~:text=of%20information%20releases-,Our%20ministers,-The%20Rt%20Hon Sdjbass (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sdjbass: Yes, you might be right, but I'm afraid that I'm probably less well-informed on the matter than you are! I would just note, as you might already have as well, that our article on the style (The Right Honourable) says that all barons (hereditary or life, and regardless of privy counsellor status) have use of it. I can't find any source to say that the practice has changed from what the Debrett's website states. It's been a pretty consistent practice across enwiki for all life peers to have the style in the infobox, and it would be fairly tricky to remove most of the Rt Hons (not that it isn't doable). Perhaps it's worth asking for other opinions in a forum like WT:ROY? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sdjbass: Here's a source for your consideration: the 2023 coronation order of service. On pages 33 and 34, it uses "the Right Honourable" as an honorific for Lord Kamall, Baroness Merron, Lord Patel and Lord Singh of Wimbledon, even though none of them are privy counsellors. That said, the order of service itself seems to be a little inconsistent with its usage, since many other barons and earls don't have it prefixed to their names (although privy counsellors invariably do). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)