User talk:Tim O'Doherty/Archive 3

False titles

False titles are hardly "tabloid and ungrammatical". It's a very widespread construction. Smithsonian ([1]) and Encyclopædia Britannica ([2]) both use "astronomer Percival Lowell" without any preceding definite article. TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

They are ungrammatical, despite how many people use them. Smithsonian and Britannica really shouldn't be. The fact that they do is not a reason for us to use them; they have no place in an encyclopaedia. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like prescriptivist absolutism to me, and I doubt we're going to see eye to eye on the broader question of prescriptivism vs. descriptivism. TompaDompa (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It might do, but when articles are carved in AmE vs BrE it's bound to happen. When broken down, do constructions like "linguist John Doe" actually make sense grammatically? Of course not. It's tabloid, I'm sorry. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course, not all Wikipedia articles are written in American or British English, nor are they meant to. TompaDompa (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if you mean that as in there are more than two varieties of English (Canadian, Scottish, Jamaican, Ghanian, Australian, etc), but when writing in English you have to pick one, regardless of whether you want to or not. If you want to describe the appearance of something, the decision to use "color" or "colour" will have to be made. Mars in fiction looks to be written in BrE and as such should not be using the typically American—and incorrect—false title. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant—there are other options, not just American or British. Obviously words will have to be spelled either one way or another. Mars in fiction may look to you like it's written in British English, but it isn't. TompaDompa (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, there are American spellings (colonize, organization, etc) but there are also British ones, like I said above. The false title was originally used in headlines where saving space is key (so "Democratic nominee Harry Truman" rather than the more complete "The Democratic nominee Harry Truman"). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; we don't need to save space, we should put grammar above that. The false title might be acceptable in some cases, but not here: its usage shouldn't be perpatuated, and it definitely is not better than the alternatives. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You came to a WP:Featured article and changed the established style. You're allowed to personally dislike this construction, but it is a widely accepted one. You say it's a question of grammar, but it's not—it's a matter of preference (there's a reason people disagree about its use). If you think it should be proscribed on Wikipedia, the place to make that happen is WT:MOS. As far as I can tell, the last time it was discussed was in 2017—then framed as a style issue rather than a grammatical one, and the motivation was consistency rather than correctness—and there was basically no interest in adding any recommendation either way. TompaDompa (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Fine. If a few pips, a few "the"s really disrupt the article that much, so what. By the way, I would appreciate it if you stop insulting my intelligence by adding links everywhere. I know what an FA is, I know what the MoS is, I know what false titles are. I don't need them condescendingly explained to me. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologize. It wasn't meant to be condescending; adding links is just a habit I have. TompaDompa (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you (and an update)

Hello. First of all, thank you for your patience with the article on Diana, Princess of Wales. I know it must not have been easy since you were also dealing with the article on Liz Truss, but bringing it to GA status would not have been possible without your input. Now that this one is done, I want to move on to the articles on William, Catherine, Camilla, and Philip. I do not think that you have "significantly" contributed to any of these pages, which makes you eligible for reviewing them. I am already putting myself through the torture of formatting and organizing the citations for all of them, the way I did it for Diana's article based on your advice. I'll probably start by nominating William's article this week and I know that you have expressed an interest in bringing it to GA status, so you could either review it, or join me in implementing the necessary changes. Let me know what you think. Have a wonderful week. Keivan.f^Talk 14:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience with the review Keivan, apologies for being so slow. Yeah, I can take on William's review if you want: like you say, I haven't significantly contributed the the articles. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with being slow. It's better than rushing through everything, especially since these are very big articles in terms of volume and amount of information. We have another user who regularly contributes to the pages on William and Catherine and they are trying to convince me to nominate the articles in April 2024 (which is presumably when their schoolwork is over) but I cannot simply afford to do that. I will nominate William's article during this week and we'll go from there. Keivan.f^Talk 16:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f - Alright. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I did go ahead with the nomination for William's page because the work that I'm about to do on Camilla and Philip's pages are unrelated to it. You're welcome to start the review and submit the first comments whenever you like. I will be looking forward to your detailed feedback. Keivan.f^Talk 17:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f - Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Fantastic user page! Absolutely spot on. ——Serial 11:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Serial - Thanks! Had some time to spare, so instead of being productive decided to mess around on WP. Hopefully a few of them made someone laugh; reckon Private Eye will be good this week. Hopefully don't get sanctioned by ArbCom for some of my Suella jokes either. Cheers — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The latest outing is great  :) "Suella Leatherapron"! ——Serial 21:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 - Ha ha (though, as we're on the subject of Braverman, I should say "haw haw"). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Reviews

Hello @Tim O'Doherty glad that you passed William, Prince of Wales as GA. That's one more feather in your hat. Now please one humble request from my end. Though you might find it difficult, please take up Catherine's article from the GA Noticeboard for review. No hurries but please take it up. Time will be at your discretion. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc - OK. If you really don't mind about the timing, I will. It will probably be a few weeks from now until completion, though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty Thanks by the way. Also including Keivan.f. He'll prove to be a valuable asset (I suppose) MSincccc (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to notify you that it has been 15 days since the last (and only comment) was passed by you. Also we have been lagging behind and the process seems to be shaky at this stage. Please try to take control of the situation else I and @Keivan.f are considering another reviewer though we will not desire for that given your successful reviews for Prince William and Princess Diana's articles. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc - I'll have a look in over the weekend. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Glad William's article has now been passed as GA. It doesn't really matter that it takes time to complete each review as long as the job is done properly. MSincccc has already nominated Catherine's page and I will play my part in bringing it to GA status. I have two more pages on mind that I think could possibly meet the GA criteria and I hope we can wrap them all up by the end of this year or perhaps early next year. Keivan.f^Talk 20:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I know those two pages, Camilla and Philip. By the way, I will also be playing an equivalent role in bringing Catherine's page to GA status. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Just giving you a heads up regarding Catherine's page because our long comments have turned the review box into a mess. I did make some changes, followed by further modifications by MSincccc and the page has now a score of 35.9% (i.e. "Violation Unlikely"); I think that's even lower than William's article. Feel free to run it again, but I think technically it no longer fails the plagiarism aspect of the GA sets of criteria. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 12:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much took care of everything listed at the GA review for Catherine's page. The only thing I was not able to act upon were the two images from the Natural History Museum. I pulled the terms and conditions page from their website. You're welcome to take a look at it. Let me know if the images can stay. Keivan.f^Talk 02:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Informal meetings

Don't know where you are located, but if you are in, or in convenient reach of, London, various Wikipedians gather from time to time at my flat in Islington or at a favoured pub in King's Cross station. If you might like to join us do email me. Tim riley talk 23:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Extremely kind of you to think of me Tim: unfortunately, I live right up in the north, and haven't ever really properly visited London itself, save for travelling through it and doing some buro stuff. But I thank you for your warm hospitality and am delighted you'd think of me as a someone good enough to socialise with. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Very wise Tim. The Riley's is actually a well-known place of pilgrimage for all those who suffer from a sound liver and steady legs. It is believed by the faithful that at the solstice, in only a matter of hours, these afflictions can be cured, and one will leave with glow-in-the-dark internals and legs that—having given up their association with the body—find their own way home  :) ——Serial 18:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose we'll have to invite you Ed. I'll let you know the date of the next séance. Tim riley talk 18:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hello Tim O’Doherty, I have seen that some of my edits have been removed because it is not cited. Please help me out with this and how do I cite sources? Danjwilkie (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Danjwilkie - Hi Daniel, it depends on the type of source. Which one are you citing? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Danjwilkie - I see you've been making some other edits to articles without citing sources, like this one. This is important to do, and not too difficult: anything you still need help with? Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for offering me important advice on these things. I have had made some mistakes to that extent and is very good to receive guidance from others. I need to correct those mistakes. Danjwilkie (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Charles III task force

Template:Charles III task force has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject British Royalty. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and formal apology

Dear Tim O'Doherty,

Thank you for undoing my inappropriate RM closure. And I also would like to sincerely apologize to you for my actions today. I should not have written that message on GoodDay's talk page and pinged you or GoodDay. And I also apologize that you became unnecessarily involved in all of this. I genuinely hope that we can have better conversations moving forward.

Sincerely,

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT - It's alright Andrew, no need to apologise. You were doing what you thought right and you should have a clear conscience. Just read up on policy a bit: WP:RMCI is a good essay. You've wronged neither me nor GoodDay, and I've always liked your conversations. I'm going to step back a bit from BritRoy titling debates; will still participate in RMs, but not in the full RfC/policy-making stuff. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

England in the High Middle Ages

You wanted a source for why I edited the Wikipedia entry on England during the High Middle Ages. Here it is, from Wikipedia itself. Here it is stated that the High Medieval period in England ends in 1272, not 1216; England in the Middle Ages#High Middle Ages (1066–1272) 2 Doughboy1918 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Really?

Right after you said this? You clearly know better. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

What? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

A purple barnstar and general escalation. Needless shit stirring right after calling an editor out for stirring the pot isn't a good look. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

OK. The barnstar was meant to be "the end of that". I'm still not really sure what I've done, but happy to apologise if I've acted badly in some way. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish - I've thought about this a bit more. I apologise. I know I've not covered myself in glory today. I'm not a bad faith actor. I'm not a shit stirrer. I try my damnest to make this place a bit better. I do what I see to be right, but I know I'm not always so. I hope you can see that. Thanks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're a bad faith actor, but everyone needs a reminder from time to time that they may be crossing the line into needless drama. Pbp is already unhappy with the situation, and leaving a purple barnstar is just a dig that's going to escalate things further. I appreciate the work you do, and all of us can get a bit snippy at times, so steady on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations on GA for Charles III and sorry for dropping out

I am really sorry for the mess around the GA for Charles III. I had basically passed it, got caught by life outside WP, and by the time I got back it had multiple people arguing and it was no longer a straightforward pass.

I was trying to get it passed prior to the Coronation.

Thank you for all your work on getting it up to standard and patience waiting for it to be passed.

PS Trying to get Donald Trump to good article standard is the work of a Saint. I imagine the arguments are horrendous. I get burnt when I touch the fringes of US politics. RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@RonaldDuncan - Thanks very much Ronald. Don't worry about it, it's not your fault. I know all too well what it's like getting caught up in real life work outside Wikipedia. And thanks for the kind words on GAs. Hope to see you around. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"Citation needed (unless I don't like it)"

Cos, anyway, "If a topic is truly notable, then you shouldn't need to look it up in a free online crowdsourced encyclopaedia" 🤦‍♂️ 🙄 ——Serial 14:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"If something's true you shouldn't need to say it. All schools should communicate purely through hive mind. Exams should never be taken because the info's true anyway, and universities need not exist because getting a degree doesn't change the bare facts of the subject". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Heh. And thanks to the sun revolving around their planet, they must have a permatan... ——Serial 20:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The sun definitely isn't revolving around my planet at least, it's absolutely freezing and perpetually dark. You'd be forgiven for thinking a polar night had settled over Britain. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay admin nom

Hi, I hope you don't mind a word from me, but I just saw your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoodDay. You do point out the ArbCom case, but you imply that everything has been fine since then? Are you not aware of GoodDay's topic ban from GENSEX, a contentious topics area, as recently as July 2022 (and still active as far as I can see)? If you are aware of it, do you honestly think it counts as "largely trouble-free for the last few years"? I'm really not trying to badger in advance here. But it will come out if the RfA runs, for certain. And I don't think it will look good if the nom doesn't mention it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee - No, I wasn't aware. Thanks for letting me know. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

RfA nomination

Howdy. Thanks for your confidence in me. I'm withdrawing from seeking the administrators' tools. Due to recent feedback at my talkpage. PS - Contacting you here, due to heavy traffic over there. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I think one day you could be an administrator - just wait a few years, try not to get topic-banned again, try to unpick all your existing ones and people will vote for you. I'm also impressed with the responses you gave on your talk page; just withdrawing when you recognised you weren't ready will help your chances if you want to go for it again in the future. Best — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat - Thanks very much. Have a good Christmas and a happy New Year to you too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

@Tim O'Doherty I am neither making any directions here nor instructing you. But since you have almost passed all the aspects except one for Catherine's GAR, being the nominator, I had like to know when you will be posting the final comments. You don't intend to fail it , I hope and you previously spoke of getting it passed before Christmas which is less than a week away. Hence this question. Hoping for the best,

Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc - Yeah, sorry about that. I'll look in now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty You stated in your most recent GA comment that you will be doing some source spotchecks before passing Catherine's article as GA. Please do it as soon as possible because lest you do it we can't progress with the nomination of other articles which deserve to be a GA because one is not allowed, as you know, to nominate more than one article for GA at a time. Hence this. Also take it as a suggestion. Rest to you. Regards and yours faithfully MSincccc (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Tim O'Doherty for passing Catherine's article as GA and being co-operative throughout the process. Looking forward to our future collaborations.

Thanking you,

Regards MSincccc (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

In advance...

@Tim O'Doherty Merry Christmas (seeing that you have already wished the others through your user page). Thanks for getting two pages in my sphere of work to GA. Hope to continue collaborating with you in 2024. Regards and yours faithfully MSincccc (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc - Thanks a lot. Glad to be of help. Merry Christmas too, to you and yours. Hope to see you around in the new year. Best — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hi Tim. First of all, happy holidays and merry Christmas! I really enjoyed collaborating with you during three separate GA reviews. As you know, I still have two royalty-related pages on my list that I would like to see promoted to GA status. The first one is Queen Camilla. I was going to nominate it today, but I would appreciate it if you could pick up the nomination and do a comprehensive review of the page for me. Again, it does not really matter how long it takes; like the previous ones we can do it over 3-4 weeks. Anyway, let me know what you think and enjoy the festive season. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 18:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Keivan, happy Christmas to you too. I'm a bit apprehensive about taking on a new review right now; I always get pretty big workloads at the start of the year, so I wouldn't be able to really do it justice until mid-February. If that's OK with you, I'll pick it up then; conversely if you nominate it now you might get another reviewer who could do the review better than I do. Weigh up your options, mull on it etc and see what you think. I appreciate your patience with me through those three reviews as well, with me working pretty lethargically through the last two, and good on you (and MSincccc) for getting the articles up to snuff. Have a great festive period, and I hope to work with you again in the new year. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. Truth be told I'm under time constraints at the moment, trying to wrap everything up before school starts again in August. I guess I'll nominate it some time between now and early January and see if anyone picks it up by the end of the month. If not, I'll notify you and hopefully with most of your work done we can proceed with the review in February. I'll stay in touch. Enjoy the holidays. Keivan.f^Talk 19:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Suella

This is getting silly. Why not just admit you made a mistake? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Because I didn't. I'm sorry you think that it's "silly", given you started the thing. Merry Christmas. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration?

Hey Tim,

First, merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Second, are you interested in collaborating on creating (and then bringing to GA and maybe FA) "Well he would, wouldn't he?"

Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts - That's interesting. If I have some time left over, sure, why not. I've a passing interest in the Profumo affair and have done a bit of reading into it in the past. Happy Christmas to you too, and have a great new year. Best — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably not ready for GA, but I think the draft is ready to move over to the mainspace, and then I can request a history merge if that's okay with you. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts - Yep, that's absolutely fine. I've made some changes too, and have left a hidden note in the article for you to review. It's a quote from Bronwen Astor's biographer, but didn't want to have it on just yet in case you thought it was too much (it is your section, after all). Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. Making the move now. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Cheers. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you think we can get this through DYK: Did you know ... that "he would, wouldn't he"? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts - Ha, that'd be great. Go for it! Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sinnistrus

I realize it was a quote. I figured it was simply a typo; the editor had left the "s" off. Otherwise, it's an ungrammatical sentence. Even if the writer were trying to be woke; only men have been popes so there's no reason for a sex-neutral pronoun.

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year.

PainMan (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@PainMan - Hm. I don't think it is ungrammatical; both make sense, at least to me. Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you too, though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

it is ungrammatcal in that a singular'x subject does decline a plural pronoun. The same as writing us instead of me. See the problem? 'I are going to the store' also "makes sense" but cannot be grammatical. PainMan (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Singular they. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I was reading about the Chief Mousers and was impressed by how many of them were GAs; I decided I ought to send a message of thanks to whoever made that happen. Thank you for your work on Munich Mouser, Nelson (cat), Peter II (cat), Peter III (cat), Wilberforce (cat), Humphrey (cat), and Sybil (cat). Great job!! (& merry Christmas!)

sawyer * he/they * talk 14:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sawyer-mcdonell - Thanks for your message. Very kind of you. Merry Christmas! Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I have to second this- thanks for your work on the Chief Mousers, as all but three are GAs to go with the shiny list (which I noted you also improved). Merry Christmas and Happy New Years! SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12 - Thanks very much :) Hopefully soon they'll all soon be GAs, with a new article for Treasury Bill soon (here's my draft for it; a bit scrappy and unfinished at the moment, but still makes for some good light-hearted Christmas reading). Best wishes to you and yours: enjoy what remains of Christmas, and hope you have a great start to the new year. Cheers — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Today the tradition of keeping a cat in / around 10 Downing Street turns 100, with the anniversary of the formation of the first Labour government and the new prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, bringing his cat Rufus to Westminster. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Tim O'Doherty, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Neveselbert - The same to you and yours. Merry Christmas, and hope you have a good 2024. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Taskforce proposal

@Tim O'Doherty Greetings. It was great to have worked with you on two GAs and knowing how experienced a reviewer you are and that you have a successful FA nomination (Liz Truss) in your arsenal means that you make a perfect fit for the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/William, Prince of Wales task force wehose primary objective as of now is to take William's article to FA status and in future other related articles as well. Given that you took his article to GA status and that you know the page well enough I beseech you to join us and leave your comments. All we need is participation of interested users who can leave valuable comments that we can use as to take the article to FA. Please join, I hope you do. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc - I've added my name. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty A user comes to Catherine's article, flags off People as not "100% RELIABLE", then changes the wording to a complex one and replaces citation with the Palace statement. All but unnecessary. So I had to reinstate. Now when I told the user about People's reliability he says that I need consensus to do so (after having made so many edits and having become the fifth largest author and second highest editor of Catherine's page where so many People cites exist and rightly so). But that's not all. The main thing is-he ends his response with "as oppressive and authoritarian editing may have consequences." When all I said was-Just to make sure that you know that People is a highly reliable source since it actively covers the British royal family and also many citations from them are present on the royals' pages. Further at times you will notice that People reports on news exclusively and also before the others at times. Hence its use is pretty much valid. Please don't revert in future any PEOPLE citations on pages of British royals. I hope you take this message seriously. Thank you and regards from ..." The last few lines of his response are aggressive indeed and though I hope he will not make such edits in future, he is the same guy who said-"The fact that Charles had left Balmoral as Prince of Wales and returned as King Charles III is noteworthy in its own rite and not trivia. Editing content to say otherwise is disrespectful and potentially seen as republican vandalism or at the very least, short sighted." and to which you replied-""republican vandalism"—really?". I say this because the tone of this editor doesn't sound good. Would be much appreciated if he could be as neutral and as kind in his responses. @Keivan.f: so that even he is notified about this. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty Well you tried to convince him but he seems to still be adamant that what he doing is right. He has replied to you. See if you can try convincing him. Regards and thanks again, from MSincccc (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty I think I made a mistake somewhere because Keivan went, removed the PEOPLE citation and replaced it with the Guardian one. Guardian is more reliable is understood but the fact that it should stay is because it reports on the same matter, is as reliable in this case and further The Guardian has a WP:PAYWALL issue. But I think the matter should end as it is presently-All three citations including PEOPLE and The Guardian stay. Expecting your reply soon and regards from MSincccc (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page, People is generally reliable. However, per WP:RSP the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source. In this instance the subject at hand (i.e. Catherine's surgery or the location where it took place) appears to be contentious at least according to one user. The remedy in this instance would be to introduce an even stronger source to back up the claims made within the article. Also, The Guardian is not behind a paywall. You can access the articles freely in the UK or the US to the best of my knowledge. Not sure about other parts of the world though. Keivan.f^Talk 03:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I have said something more to you on your talk page which needs an urgent response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Advice for the GA

Hey Tim. Hope you're doing well. Just wanted to let you know that MSincccc has taken on the task of reviewing Camilla's article, but given that it's their first review I feel it might be really overwhelming for them. The article is relatively long and is highly visible, and I would have personally preferred for them to start with a much shorter article for their first attempt. I don't want a review that will end up in reassessment or delisting in the long run so if you can chime in feel free to do so. Otherwise, I might have to see who else can help with it (suggestions are welcome). Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 18:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f - I'm sure MSincccc will do a fine job. Of course, if anything seems off or not up to standard I'll have a look in, but that doesn't seem to be too much of a worry at this point. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know I just feel like the comments are not constructive and rather sporadic in terms of relevancy; but, we are in the early stages so I'm willing to give them a chance. Anyway, have a look here and there but I might enlist an additional reviewer to sort of help with the situation if I feel we are proceeding too slowly or nothing significant is being done. Best. Keivan.f^Talk 00:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep, early doors yet. We'll see. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2024 @Tim O'Doherty. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc - Happy new year to you too. Also happy new year to Keivan. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy new year everyone :) Keivan.f^Talk 00:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ash Regan

I posted the Scottish Parliament link on the talk page of the relevant article. I look forward to you reverting your change. Happy New Year.

Talk:Ash Regan#Alba Party Leader

AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

My reference to "unsourced OR" in my edit summary was correct; ie, Wikipedia has just invented the title "Leader of the Alba Party in the Scottish Parliament". It appears nowhere on the internet. We can't pluck a title from midair. It doesn't exist. No source, reliable or unreliable, has ever used that title. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you look at the Ash Regan talk page? Did you try clicking on the link I provided there that shows that the Scottish Parliament refers to her as the "Party Leader" of "Alba Party"?

Let me try again...

1. Open the Scottish Parliament website: https://www.parliament.scot

2. Click on "MSPs" in the title bar and select "Current Party Balance"

3. Scroll to the bottom where it says "Alba Party – 1 MSP" and "Party leader - Ash Regan"

It ain't difficult.

AlistairMcMillan (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right, that's not difficult. What also "ain't difficult" is reading my reply to you. You will need a source which has the exact phrasing "Leader of the Alba Party in the Scottish Parliament". Otherwise it is just pure Wikipedia original research. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we should continue this discussion on the relevant talk page. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Listed on Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements to get a third opinion on this. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@AlistairMcMillan - Thanks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Request

@Tim O'Doherty I would really appreciate it if you could just look into Queen Camilla's article and assist in the GA process. As you know it is my first review and I might have overlooked some errors. The prose needs to be worked upon though I am unable to navigate a specific direction. Also I am yet to pass the aspect which decides the summary style. Please help as I am intent on closing this review within this week and also don't expect that the article is later put up for re-assessment just because of some gross irregularities. Your support and assistance will prove vital, I can assure you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc - Will do. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty But please I would prefer getting it done by next Friday. Thanks for accepting my proposal. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty Could you just assess the prose? I have done it but you can give it a recheck. By the way, I will be grateful if you could just reassess all the aspects as a second check from somebody other than the reviewer will be only fine. Rest assured please let me know when the article is capable of being passed as GA. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc - It all looks fine to me. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty Then passing the article as GA given it looks all fine. MSincccc (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc - Cool. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty Please fix any shortcomings on my part on Camilla's talk page. As you know it was my first successful GAR. Please. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc - As long as you've passed the "Overall assessment" bit on GA1, changed the talk page banners and added it to the list of royalty / nobility GAs, you're done. You just need to wait for the bot to go through. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, something has not gone through because I just received a notification from the bot which says the nomination has failed. Keivan.f^Talk 17:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f - I've added the GA banner. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks for the help. I really did not want to interfere in the closing process because as the nominator it's not my place to do so. Best. Keivan.f^Talk 18:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Helping out a new editor?

I'm chatting with an editor who's interested in the British nobility and I thought you might have some suggestions for constructive editing that they can do. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts - I'll take a look. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind. Appears to be a sock. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah. That's too bad. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your quick response, though! voorts (talk/contributions) 20:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A thank you

Tim, thank you for your endless edits on UK pages. I admire you and look up to you. You're an amazing editor & should be an admin.

Best wishes. 90.215.134.58 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@90.215 — Woah. Didn't expect to get a message like this! Thanks very much, you're very kind. I do try. Hope to see you around in the future. Best wishes and cheers — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You're very welcome. May I please ask for your expert feedback on an edit I wish to make? Well, I'm an IP account and can't make such change yet. However, on England I want to add a collage I put together of four images from Wikipedia Commons (which are correctly sourced). I want to add this collage here under the 'cuisine' section, to display some of England's best food exports. This includes English tea cakes, English cheese, English wine, and English cider.

I'm just not sure if it would be reverted. Do you think it would be a wise idea? 90.215.134.58 (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be an issue. Do you want me to add it in? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

If you could, that would be lovely! 90.215.134.58 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it could replace the current fish and chips image. 90.215.134.58 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, will do. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Most welcome! Thanks again. 90.215.134.58 (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

RMs & NCROY

Well, it looks like the RFC at NCROY (several months ago) is going to be the deciding factor in basically all RMs going forward, concerning monarch bio page titles. It's at a point now, where a 'minority' within these RMs, will win out - simply by pointing to NCROY. I think I'm very much done, with these monarch bio RMs. One wonders, why the pro-movers even bother opening RMs, if it seems the outcome is already decided. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't despair GoodDay. The move at Ferdinand VI of Spain was clearly a WP:SUPERVOTE. But recent RMs also citing NCROY at Talk:Christian I of Denmark and Talk:Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia have failed. I wish that there was more coordination between the moves, maybe at WP:ROY, where everything would be determined rather than having multiple tuppenny-ha'penny moves stretched over many months, which are all closed in various ways. Everything's all shifting and drifting from everything else, becoming more and more inconsistent. It's all just a mess and laughably unsustainable. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Eventually, the suffix "of country" will be purged from as many of these bio pages, as possible. Many years ago, I was against the addition of diacritics on English Wikipedia & we all know the end result there. Just look at all bios on this project & you'll see'em. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the first sentence of UK countries (Scotland in particular) has become a point of contention again. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

My input, may have put an end to it & the infobox dispute. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed that someone had added "Category:Countries in Europe" to the England, Scotland & Wales pages - I've since reverted those additions, as they're not independent countries. I think the best thing to do is have all "Category:Countries in X" moved to "Category:Sovereign states in X", to solve the confusion. But, I don't know (and could never figure out) how to open an RM on categories. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you just need to make an RM as normal, right? I remember seeing a few categories at RMC for discussion. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've no clue, how to construct them. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay - WP:RMPM. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The recently closed RM at Frederick IX of Denmark is the last straw, for me. IMHO, the real reason it was nominated to be moved to "Frederik IX of Denmark", was to match it better with his grandson's (soon-to-be) Frederik X page. Don't worry, Freddie IX's page will soon be getting another RM - to drop the "of Denmark" suffix. GoodDay (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Portrait

@Tim O'Doherty A new portrait of Charles III taken in 2023 officially by Hugo Burnand is now available to the public as per a PEOPLE mag article. Will it be possible to get it hosted on Commons so that we can use it as Charles' infobox picture on his Wikipedia page? Notifying you as you are a significant contributor and a reliable collaborator. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc - I don't think so. Crown copyright. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty @Keivan.f: Thats fine but as you both know in recent days much is being said about the royal family in the media as well as in a number of books. Do they deserve a mention on the royals' specific articles? Can they be considered notable? Pinging Keivan here as he seems to be busy when I write on his talk page. Eager to know from you both. Regards and yours faithfully MSincccc (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc - Are you talking about Charles's prostate and Catherine's abdominal surgeries? Both are covered in their articles. Is there something I'm missing? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I myself added citations for Charles's prostate and Catherine's abdominal surgeries. I am closely covering them. I mean to say what is being said about the royals in Omid Scobie's, Valentine Low's or Robert Hardman's books and all the exclusive coverage you will find at reliable sources like BBC or People where new revelations are reported. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc - I'm not sure, I've not read them. Isn't Hardman the one that did the Coronation Year documentary? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty You are correct. He was the one. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have recently avoided hot topics on talk pages; I needed a mental break. But this seems like a normal conversation so I will chime in :) I don't think any of Scobie's claims merit any mention in any of the biographical articles. The only thing that was noteworthy in that book was him referring to "alleged" comments made by Charles and Catherine about Harry's unborn/future potential child (depends really on which version of their truth you want to believe). We don't include allegations of this sort from an author whose credibility has been questioned in an encyclopedia, unless it is there to provide context. Then there is Hardman's book. We had to deal with it on Elizabeth II's page with the whole "who was at her bedside" thing, and then there is the Lilibet saga (did the Queen bless the Sussexes to name their daughter Lilibet or not?). Users refused to have trivia of that sort included in the late Queen's page, and I agree. Keivan.f^Talk 14:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty and @Keivan.f Aren't viral videos and social media sites generally avoided as citations? But a user who considers Palace sources and reputed media outlets "unreliable" seems to have cited viral videos from X (formerly Twitter) and Youtube on the page Brendan Kavanagh. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

They don't seem to (or maybe refuse to) understand that we do not cite primary sources when it comes to sensitive biographical details about a person. Primary sources can also give undue weight to certain events. For now I have tagged all the citations that have issues. If this behavior continues something has to be done about it. Keivan.f^Talk 15:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty and @Keivan.f The truth is that they refuse to rather than seem to not understand that we do not cite primary sources when it comes to sensitive biographical details about a person and I bet that he will continue with his behaviour given the description on his user page which says:"...fighting injustices wherever they arise. Calling out bullying in social media and beyond. Truth is never harmful, even if inconvenient to the tiny, tiny minority who attempt to subvert it around the world." Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty and @Keivan.f Congratulations for the behaviour has continued (nothing to celebrate about, just being sarcastic). But the truth of the matter is that despite the tags on the citations the user has continued to cite Youtube and X (formerly Twitter). Similar revisions have been made to pages John Caudwell and Brendan Kavanagh and a few other pages. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f and @Tim O'Doherty Its the issue with not only one page but all the pages that the user edits. We can't go about just adding tags and then, nobody is going to fix them. Its time they got a final word as Keivan once said:"If this behavior continues something has to be done about it". We should consider notifying him once again before any further tags. Else we are making all those pages only messy and he is obviously not going to stop citing YouTube, X, MailOnline and other similar sources. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

A request

Hey Tim, I see you throughout this site, with your good articles and improvements to pages. I wanted to ask you, would you be up for one day helping to improve the History of England page, to hopefully, one day, get it to GA quality?

If you compare it to History of Scotland, there is a clear difference. For one, the page misses out important details on English history and needs expanding in many areas. I want to begin work on that soon but I am a bit worried about the length of this project and it may take some time.

This will be a big project which does scare me. But I really want to improve that page and try to get it to GA. I love English history & I'm shocked so much is missed from that page. I shall see if I will find such time. 86.171.225.33 (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I personally think History of Scotland is a good baseline. That's what I think History of England should try to be; a section on each English period (including the later centuries before the Act of Union and after), with an image for each section, perfectly displaying a segment of art, building, monument or figure from that period. There's so much context that is lacking on History of England. 86.171.225.33 (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@86 - thanks for your words. I was actually intending to get the England article to GA, then FA quality, by June 2027 so that it could appear on the Main Page on 12 July, its 1,100th birthday. That work will probably start a way off from now, and probably won't begin any earlier than 2025. To tell you the truth, I'm a bit tied up on real life- and Wiki- work right now, but when I get some spare time of course I'll be happy to help on History of England. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Same here Tim, thank you for your reply. We'll hopefully get there one day! 86.171.225.33 (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)