User talk:Boleyn/Archive 12

1. Christian Martin (rugby union) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boleyn

If you are back creating articles again, then you really should removed the "retired" tag from your user page.

The reason i am posting here is that I encountered another of your creations while monitoring some categories: John Heathcote (died 1795)

It's a bit better than the one-line sub-stubs you were creating earlier in the year, but the short article as you left had several problems:

1. You had placed Heathcote in Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies, even though he died 5 years before the UK was created. This has been pointed out to you before, and it's all explained at Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies
2. You had tagged Heathcote with {{UK-MP-stub}}. That's wrong, for the same reason as the category was wrong: the correct tag is {{GreatBritain-MP-stub}}
3. You placed him in the non-existent Category:British MPs 1790-1795 rather than the correct Category:British MPs 1790–1796

I then looked at some of your other recent contributions:

Ambrose Phillipps

1. Mistagged with {{UK-MP-stub}}
2. Wrongly balled as "the
   Member of Parliament
   for", not "the"

Charles Blount, 3rd Earl of Newport

• This had been redirected, but you reverted the redirect. I restored the redirect, because the text you had created contained nothing beyond what's in
  Member of Parliament
  , which appears to be untrue (I can see no evidence for that)

Edward Lewis (Devizes MP)

1. Mistagged with {{UK-MP-stub}}
2. Labelled as "the MP", when there were two of them
3. mistagged with {{UK-MP-stub}}. That should be {{England-MP-stub}}; he died 130 years before the UK was created, and was a member of the Parliament of England, which was abolished in 1707
4. No category for his time as MP (he should be in Category:Members of the pre-1707 Parliament of England)
5. You state that he was "British", but he was English, not British - he died 30 years before the Kingdom of Great Britain was created

I haven't the time to go through all the rest of your recent creations, but I see no reason to expect that the standard is any higher.

Since i started writing this message, you posted to my talk page to say that had returned "to ensure that all the articles I created are referenced and to see if I can expand any". But all except one of the articles I mention above was newly created by you, and despite their brevity they are full of mistakes on matters which should be very well known to an editor like yourself who has made so many edits in the same field.

I don't know what to say here, except to despair. There are still hundreds of abysmal sub-stubs waiting to be cleaned up after your previous bouts of high-speed editing, and as you know this rapid-fire creation off substandard pages has been repeatedly criticised before, including several threads at

And now, instead of cleaning up the humungous mess you left behind, you're creating more.

Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please ... if you really do want to create articles, please can you first take the time to try to understand something enough of the topics you are writing about so that you don't keep on repeating the same very basic mistakes in one article after another?

You've had plenty of offers of help before, but AFAICS you have ignored them all.

Now that it's restarted, I can only conclude that it amounts wilfully disruptive editing. I'm going away for a few weeks, but when I'm back I will open an RFC. This has gone for far too long, and it's still just a make-work for others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should do whatever you think best, although I cannot see how you conclude that I am wilfully disruptively editing. I will try to answer your points. I have been working through my list of previously created articles, and this has included recreating several articles on MPs which I had previously created, but which were deleted by you on the grounds of not expanding the information given in the constituency article. I have ensured that they give more than the constituency article, have at least one reliable reference and a succession box.

Regarding the retirement tag, I removed it from my user page, but think I forgot to on my talk page, where it also was. I probably will now, although it's probably a temporary and short return mainly to try to address issues with articles I previously created; I was unhappy to think they were sitting there, needing work, and that I wasn't contributing. Thank you for pointing out UK/England issue, I will check these more closely as I look through the rest. You're quite right that you pointed out months ago that I had made this mistake in previous articles, but as I haven't edited in a couple of months, I had forgotten that this was something I needed to be especially careful with. Duly noted.

Regarding the Charles Blount article, I really think that an article changed to a redirect to another article (which is effectively a deletion of the article) should have the reasons clearly given on the Talk page of the article. If the issue is simply that it has one error and doesn't expand on the list article, then I would probably address those issues rather than change it to a redirect; if it was more than that, i.e. notability issues, then of course I would know to leave it as it is.

Since you raised that I had written that several MPs were 'a' MP rather than 'the' MP I've been careful with this too. However, I don't feel it's a huge mistake or justifies a cutting edit summary. To describe my recently restored articles as full of mistakes seems to me to be overblown and inaccurate. I appreciate your advice (when politely put) and the hard work you've put into cleaning up articles I created. I have previously apologised for the mistakes I made when rushing articles, and am doing my best to undo any damage done. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, those articles are very short: there isn't much in them to wrong, but you still consistently manage to make the same mistakes over and over again, on points which a conscientious editor would have picked up on long ago. The mistakes may be small, but there are lts of them in each article, and they are repeated again and again. My concern is and remains, that you spend your time creating lots of articles badly, rather than learning how to do fewer and do them accurately. It's still a full-time-job tidying up after you :(

It's very sad to see this rapid-fire article creation starting over again, but I am trying very hard to restrain my comments; if some of them sharp, they are still very mild compared to what I feel like saying. For example, I did not mention anything about the succession boxes you created, because I was pleased to see that you were at last trying to create them (they're really useful) ... but on that point it would be much much better if you took the time to learn how to create them properly, by studying the succession boxes in other similar articles. Why create so many malformed boxes, rather than taking the time to learn how to do them right before continuing?

I'm really pleased that you are trying to undo the damage ... but I'm sorry to say that you are still creating so many more articles which need lots of tidying up even before any new content is added ... and the fact that you are creating articles previously deleted doesn't make it any better.

I do want to believe that you are trying to be constructive ... but if that's really the case, please take more care. There's no speed test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't and that isn't my aim in going through these articles. I had thought I was getting the succession boxes right (I've only just learned how to do them at all) but will revise what else they may need to include. Boleyn (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Welcome back, but ... could you check this chap's dates, as you've got him posthumously in Parliament! PamD (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those are the dates given at Leigh Rayment, I checked the ref, but obviously it makes little sense. I don't know if it means technically he remained in until there was a replacement? Anyway, I changed it in the article to 1737, but moved the ref earlier, so the ref only backed up the info given on Leigh Rayment. Is LR a usually reliable source? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed. Rayment is very reliable, and in this case what happened is simply that he died in 1737, but the by-election for his replacement was not held until the following year. Quite a common occurrence with MPs: death late in one year, by-election early the next year. And, naturally, a person ceases to be an MP once they are dead ... and although several MPs have been elected posthumously, they are instantly disqualified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - welcome back and congratulations on your little event. I hope all is going well.

I for one really appreciate your work in kicking off articles. It takes me over twice as long to create articles from scratch as to build from a stub and it helps because you have already linked in the linked articles. Maybe not perfect, but "better than nothing"! given there is an enormous task to be done here. Things seem over-complicated by the Eng/GB/UK differentiations and we are still left with the anomoly that Tudor MPs represent UK constituencies - pity we dont use "Westminster" throughout. Personally I find the Category approach is inherently imperfect and generally unusable except for specific exercises so I don't waste my time or risk odium by trying to pick my way through the morass - others with an interest can do that. As I work through blocks of MPs I can assure you that there are many many articles - some created by those who now know better - that were far from perfect when created and which have hardly been touched in three or four years. So keep up the good work.

I notice you want to merge your accounts. Here is an administrator who seems to be very good at merging edit history User:Graham87. All the best Motmit (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate that. Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I also add my welcome? It's nice to have you back, Boleyn. You and your knowledge of Tudor history have been missed around here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jeanne, good to hear from you. Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boleyn, unfortunately I can only merge edit histories, not accounts. The only people who can merge accounts are system administrators, and they are usually very busy keeping the site running. The note that is on your user page about the three accounts is a good idea. Graham87 02:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Graham. If you could merge my edit histories, it would be a big help. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I can't do that. I can only merge page histories, not peoples' contributions. Graham87 10:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood, when you said you could merge edit histories, I thought you meant all my edits. Thanks anyway, Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved Gabriel Hanger, 1st Baron Coleraine to User:Boleyn/sandbox since it was nowhere near ready for the (article) namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that you have created a lot of these sub-stubs. Please stop. Why cannot you wait until you have created a proper stub? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All seven had been created in the last hour and all had under construction tags on them. If you'd waited another hour, they'd all have been finished. Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the bandwagon here... I think you should be careful about producing numerous stubs on British MP's. I have now spent a good deal of time improving one of them, Gabriel Hanger, 1st Baron Coleraine. The main problem is the succession box. Firstly, an MP should appear under the name the had at the time they sat in the House of Commons. In this case the Earl of Aylesford was styled Lord Guernsey, the Earl of Egmont was styled Viscount Egmont, Lord Fairfax was styled Robert Fairfax (although he may have been styled Master of Cameron) and Lord de Clifford was known as Edward Southwell. Secondly, it is customary, in the case of constituencies with two MP's, to include the dates when the other MP represented the constituency. I have now added the dates for the three MP's who represented Maidstone alongside Lord Coleraine. In the case when another MP represented the constituency for the entire period (such as Viscount Perceval) it's customary to leave out the dates. It is also normal to include a succession box for peerages. Could you PLEASE use this system in any future MP article you create. Do you really expect a number of other users to clean up after you? Perhaps you should also spend a little more time on each article, and for instance not use abbreviations such as "9 Jan 1697". It would also be useful to include personal details in articles. So instead of creating six new articles on MP's you should perhaps be creating three and spend a little more time on these three. Regards, Tryde (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I'm working on correcting the articles I've created in line with your suggestions, and will post a full answer to this later on. Boleyn (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to 'Do you really expect a number of other users to clean up after you?' the answer is an unequivocal no. When people have pointed out things that should be added, as you have, I go through all the articles I've created on MPs and adjust them accordingly - something which takes a lot of time, but which I'm happy to do, and have already started doing in line with your suggestions. However, my aim is to create a basis for a good article, not to complete a good article itself. The latest articles have succession boxes (even if some smaller details weren't included), information on when the MPs represented these constituencies, categories and at least one reliable reference. I am spending time on these. For one of the MPs, I spent over one and a half hours just on his succession box, and will go back and spend longer now you've pointed out other things. I have only just started doing succession boxes, so I'm not surprised that there were a couple of smaller things I'd accidentally left out, but I think on the whole what you've pointed out are very small issues. It is much better that an article is created, with accurate information, reliable reference(s), succession box and categories, even if there are a couple of things that should also be added, than that there is nothing. This then gives a good basis for someone with more expertise in this area to turn it into a good article; even if no one else edits it, it will still be helpful to the reader. I will go back over the articles and edit in accordance with your suggestions. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you don't need to create "good articles". Many biographies of obscure MP's will contain only little information - you'd probably need to find very specific biographical works in order to expand them - and will never become featured articles. However, they should be correct and follow the format used in other articles. For baronets in succession boxes use the style [[Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet|Sir John Smith, Bt]]. I have also seen that you use "with" in the predecessor and successor spaces. I have never seen that used in other boxes. Some people use "and" but I think that looks ugly, so I suggest you just add the two names. Regards, Tryde (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my 'deletion by mistake'. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 21:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No bother, I thought that might have been what happened. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, I need your help. I created an article on this woman yesterday: Elizabeth Leyburne, Duchess of Norfolk. I noticed that you created an article on her daughter Anne Howard, Countess of Arundel. Would you have any info on Elizabeth, especially regarding her supposed Catholicism? I haven't found anything which states her religion. Thank you so much.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jeanne. She doesn't ring a bell, but I'll search my books. Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of bits, but haven't found much so far. I can find info on the Dacres being very conservative and this leading Leonard Dacre into treason (ODNB article on L Dacre) and her second marriage was also into a well-known Catholic family, which indicates that she was probably of the same persuasion, but it's just circumstantial. I can't find anything on her beliefs, not so far anyway. I'll keep looking. Boleyn (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's all I've been able to find, although it did inspire me to finally create an article on Kathy Lynn Emerson. Boleyn (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your additions, you have been very helpful! Hopefully I'll find something which says more about her religious beliefs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boleyn, We know you're a very experienced editor, so please try to get things right. Looking at this article as you left it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathy_Lynn_Emerson&oldid=392004937 as "no longer under construction", there's:

• External links all appearing as [4] etc: you need to add a title, within the square brackets, or if you're just going to leave the bare URL then drop the brackets so that the URL itself appears.
• External links all run together without being separated by bullets onto separate lines
• The one reference was just a bare URL
• References after the External links -
  WP:Layout
  specifies that they go before
• Category:Writers - well, yes, it's a relevant category, but it wasn't difficult to find several rather more precise ones. No nationality, no genre?
• No default sort key, so she'd be filing under K rather than E

• I find it easiest to use {{subst:L|||Emerson, Kathy Lynn}} (if a date of birth and/or death is known, it goes between the pairs of "|" as {{subst:L|1917|1990|Bloggs, Joe}} etc). That generates the birth, death, and "living person" categories and the Defaultsort, all in one quick line of typing. L is short for "Lifetime", a category which now has to be "subst"ed, but the shortcut means it's no more to type than it used to be!

• It's conventional to start off "X is a Yish Z", where Yish is the nationality.
• And it was easy to improve the article (well, I see them as improvements!) in a few other ways with no particular expertise in the area and zero prior knowledge of the specific author.

I don't want you to think I'm Wikistalking you, but please try to get more of it right first time and not leave so many pieces for other people to come and tidy up after you! Thanks. PamD (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another couple of points: Well done for remembering to provide redirects from the pseudonyms; it would be useful to list her books (even more so if you added ISBNs which would then "automagically" link); I wonder whether it would be useful to add redirects from the series titles and Susanna Appleton / Diana whatsit - I can't find chapter and verse anywhere as to whether this is generally thought OK, but I'd think it would (a) help readers and (b) reduce the chance of someone creating a duplicating stub article elsewhere. Cheers. PamD (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Nicostratus some lines were commented out (I made them visible, your revert crossed my rewrite). It might be better to put such things onto the talk page: Out-commented lines will only be found accidently; and readability is not so good either. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. As it stands, most of the entries on this now don't meet

Hi, the complicated succession box for this chap didn't seem to be working right - the years he was MP were appearing in the wrong place, and the word "with" wasn't appearing. I rummaged around for other multi-member constituency MPs and found George Heneage whose boxes looked better, and reformatted your info into that format - using slightly different set of succession box templates. It also doesn't seem to be the norm to include the dates for the "before and after" MPs, so I stripped them out which makes it look a bit less messy.

I couldn't find a "how to do succession boxes" anywhere, and the documentation at {{Template:S-start}} is a bit overwhelming, so I used the usual principle of "find one which looks OK and imitate". I tried to find a Featured Article for a British MP: William Wilberforce doesn't have dates for his before/after people, though I realise the multi-member aspect might be an argument for leaving them in place! Hope you approve of the new version of Robert A. PamD (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PamD for helping out - it seems no one finds these easy. These boxes are a monstrosity of complexity and provide scope for compulsive editors to get hung up because others dont follow their unwritten rules. At least the Succession box template is relatively straightforward, but there is unfortunately a more complicated version using hyphenated code which is awful. The important thing is to get the links in. It wasn't hard to add the end box which gave the problem on this article originally, and it hasn't been hard to put a few things straight as I work on more important material in articles. Just take note of the changes I have made. You are free to put in what you like and if others like it they will adopt it - if not they will remove it. There are some who seem totally obsessed with the format of these wretched boxes whereas there is an enormous amount of work to be done firstly creating the articles and secondly adding useful information. Keep up the good work - I will support your efforts Motmit (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Tryde suggested that the dates for before and after MPs should be added it, but perhaps I misread the message, I'll look over it again. I'll look at your format and see if that would be better to use in the future. So long as it's got the basic info in, I don't think it matters too much. Thanks to both of you, Boleyn (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were going to stopp mass-producing MP articles, at least until you had understood the basics of succession boxes. Is this article of use to anyone? It was the same with Robert Austen (above) until someone cleaned up after you. Please stop. Tryde (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dont let people bully you. You are working very hard and I really appreciate the work you have done kicking off articles. It has been really interesting developing some of your creations. There is a massive amount of work to be done and every little helps. This is a cooperative project and everybody develops what others have begun. Best Motmit (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to bully anyone. Boleyn has been asked over and again to stop creating articles full of errors regarding both facts and formatting. Creating a succession box is not hard, why persist in creating articles with succession boxes that are completely horrendous-looking, like the one in Sir Robert Austen, 4th Baronet. This article should never have entered main space in the state it is in now. There is absolutely nothing in creating basic articles for MPs. However, they should be correctly formatted. I have cleaned up around ten articles created by Boleyn and I assume there are many more. This gets tiresome. Tryde (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has a note saying it is in the middle of expansion. Seems Boleyn prefers to create articles on the hoof. I use wordpad offline and copy in the text when ready. I have no problem with developing Boleyn's articles and fix any errors I find as I go along together with the hundreds of errors in other articles that have been around for years. It just seems someone is trying to help develop an encyclopedia and getting an awful lot of harrassment for her efforts Motmit (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having had my attention drawn to it I've now fixed the succession box: Boleyn, you'd left it looking like this, and if you didn't have time to carry on working on it it might have been better to cut and paste that into your sandbox for now and come back to it later, or to comment out the text from the article, rather than leave such a mess. I also added some geographical context: Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and the opening sentence needs to specify what country someone was from, rather than assuming that the rest of the world will recognise that New Romney is an English constituency. PamD (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine with a new baby it is sometimes necessary to drop what you are doing in the middle of it.Motmit (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that had crossed my mind too - so the baby is probably a good reason to use a sandbox for work on complicated things like succession boxes, and paste them into the article when ready, rather than risk having to leave something in the article in such a garbled state. Or get so familiar with the key-strokes needed for commenting text out that you can do it in a few seconds while rushing away. PamD (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate my point, I have now spent the last half-hour cleaning up succession boxes in five articles created by Boleyn:

Sir William Hardres, 4th Baronet, Barnham Rider and Sir Richard Levinge, 1st Baronet (the one in the last article was particularly awful-looking). I should be able to spend my time here more constructively. I don't doubt that Boleyn has good intentions. However, she should be much more careful when creating new articles. Tryde (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

My internet connection stopped working, and just started again a couple of hours ago. I do prefer to create them straight in, mainly because if someone looks them up, it's better to find a started article, even if the succession box is still being developed, than to find nothing at all. Also I rarely leave them until I've finished, so I haven't seen it as a problem. I'll try working in my sandbox from now on. Tryde, if you've looked at the articles I've created sine you messaged me about succession boxes, you'll have seen that I've tried to incorporate your suggestions; with this, the problem was difficult to foresee, but I'm happy to use the sandbox to eliminate the chances of it happening again. However, I really don't think there's a need to message me every time you're not happy with something about an article I've created. You can see that I'm trying and improving and had taken on board and implemented some of your suggestions even though I personally don't think there's that important. Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, the format for succession boxes added by PamD to Samuel Western is much easier to use than the one you've been using up until now, so use this instead. However, I've never seen the years in brackets before so I think they should be removed. Anyway, she got the dates wrong by about 200 years so that needs to be changed! In succession boxes for baronets please add the territorial designation. The format for predecessors and successors is [[Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet|John Smith]] and not [[Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet]]. I hope you find these tips helpful. Regards, Tryde (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you use "with1=" this won't work (don't ask me to explain why - see your version of

Robert Bristow (1662-1706)). Begin with "with=" and then "with2=" and so on. Tryde (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, I'm trying to use this system now. I'm surprised there isn't a MOS for this. Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the centuries!

But, I've now found something approaching an MOS for parliamentary succession boxes, though maybe it's an intention rather than yet a standard. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization/Guidelines#Parliamentary_seats_.28s-par.29. Among other things it specifies: "In constituencies which returned multiple members, all predecessors and successors should be listed, separated by a single
to break to the next line. Members of Parliament simultaneously representing the constituency should be listed after the name of the constituency in small type (use <small> before the words you want to appear in small type and </small> right after them). If one of the other members represented the constituency throughout the length of the subject's term, the date range may be omitted; otherwise, the years between which that member served should appear after the member's name.". So I think our dates in brackets are indeed appropriate. PamD (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, on looking more carefully, the brackets should be removed - perhaps that's what Tryde meant, when saying "However, I've never seen the years in brackets before so I think they should be removed.", though I read that as saying that the dates should be removed, not just the brackets! Feel free to remove any of the brackets I've added. PamD (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the section on titles, further up the page, has a lot to say about forms of names for Baronets etc in succession boxes, which might be useful. PamD (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you had also created an article on this chap:

Tryde, I think the correct thing to do would have been to

WP:MOVE Boleyn's existing article, created in July, rather than start a different article for the same man on 17 October. Presumably you searched for an existing article, eg at Thomas Wyndham dab page, so would have realised you were creating a duplicate? PamD (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

That is probably correct. However, I found the red link in Lord Chancellor of Ireland and didn't realise that there was an article already. Otherwise I would have moved the original article, of course. I clearly stated when merging the articles that I incorporated material from Thomas Wyndham, Baron Wyndham, so I hope this is alright. Tryde (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, I probably misnamed it because I created it from a red link and didn't realise it was missing the number. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I spotted a "fl." date and had a feeling I remembered seeing something about them... checked

• When the individual is known to have been alive (flourishing) at certain dates, [[floruit|fl.]] or {{
  fl.}} is used in articles, not disambiguation pages, to link to floruit
  , in case the meaning is not familiar: "Osmund (fl. 760–772) ..."

Always something new to learn, eh? I fixed Jeffrey Hamet O'Neal, though I did think you could have given him a few more links when creating him. Hope baby is flourishing! PamD (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, he is indeed. Boleyn (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've filled in the {{DNB}} template there: the syntax for that has changed recently. Ideally there should be a link back from the Wikisource article, and that automatically takes it out of s:Category:DNB No WP. I wanted to mention that there is a new tool for that category, with links on the category page over there. For example for letter O click to get this page coming a little slowly, and there is some useful information about how the non-linked Wikisource DNB articles might be matched up with Wikipedia. This particular article comes out at the bottom. Obviously this is useful both for the maintenance task, and for finding DNB biographies that perhaps don't exist here. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look at that. Boleyn (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thepeerage.com has further information on this person that may be of relevance. He also has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography. That is if you are interested in expanding the article. Regards, Tryde (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I probably won't add to it, because my main interest is in getting articles started so there's at least something on them, unless I know about them. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles:

I've undone this absurd speedy nomination and left a note on the editor's talk page to point out that it was clearly absurd ... but they deleted my comment almost immediately. Some editors have very odd ideas. PamD (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, it seems the editor's only been around a week or so. Boleyn (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit broke many internal links that now direct to a wrong page. Can you please fix that? The talk page banner needs to be removed too now. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, all done now. Boleyn (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's taken most of the day. The succession boxes were a real nightmare but I think I've got him sorted out now ... en route I created John Conyers (disambiguation) page and cleaned up and expanded Conyers (disambiguation)! I only started on him because I was puzzled to see him unlinked in John Toke's succession boxes, but then found he hadn't been linked before anywhere else either - presumably someone way back found the US politician and couldn't work out how to create red links, or something like that. Thanks for the West Looe connection. Not sure what the official policy is for a succession box which spans two versions of Parliament - you can see my improvised version. If BHG was around I'd consult but she seems to be genuinely away at the moment. PamD (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have you back Annie.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so far I'm enjoying being back. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Nice new stubs too (with sources!). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your version:

Please do not use "Bt" after predecessor and successor in succession boxes for baronets (but use the style ""Sir John Smith, Bt" in other succession boxes). Please add territorial designation for baronetcy.

Better version:

Your version:

Better version:

Regards, Tryde (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Christopher Haigh, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/staff/postholder/haigh_ca.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not

I've left a message on the page, assume the only problem is his list of works. Hope it's OK now. Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I had a look at this as I have family roots near Perth, wanted to check whether they were tried, died or what there. Had a look at the text of Foxe's, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Martyrs_%28Foxe%29/Chapter_XV (it must be worth adding a link to that wikisource to the article, I know there's a template for it, can't think of it just now) and it seems they were all six both tried and died in Perth, BUT, only one was burned. Others hanged and drowned. Please make sure that you put only accurate information into Wikipedia.

It would also be very helpful to link terms such as "Protestant" in an article like this, and indicate just which set of beliefs they were martyred for.

It also isn't useful to link the names in the article, as the links all redirect back to the same article. I was about to unlink them, then wondered whether you had plans to create articles for each of the 6, so didn't. But those 6 articles are going to be one-liners if anything. If you do create them, please make sure the content is correct, ie NOT "was burned" if they weren't. Might be better to stick to just the one article, with more detail in it from Foxe's. Thanks. PamD (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have linked the ref to Wikisource text.PamD (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was looking for more information on the individuals to see if they could justify individual articles, but there didn't seem much point, all names redirect to Perth Martyrs. I've removed them now and corrected the execution info, but didn't remove the dispute tag, I left it in case you had further concerns. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In succession boxes like the one in Edward Blaker, please add the dates for the other MP. If the other MP was the same for the entire period this is unnecessary. The succession box for the baronetcy in Sir Herbert Springet, 1st Baronet needs to be corrected. Use the succession box I added above. Remember also to use the name the MP held at the time he was an MP. For instance, in your article on Richard Tufton, 5th Earl of Thanet, you have stated that his predecessor as MP for Appleby was Thomas Tufton, 6th Earl of Thanet. Richard didn't succeed in the earldom until his brother's death in 1684 and anyway it is impossible for a 17th-century English peer to have sat in the House of Commons. This also applies to baronets. If an MP didn't become a baronet until after he was an MP, don't use the style "Sir X X, Bt". I'm not trying to be nitpicky here, but this is the system used. Btw, in the article on Springet, one solution to the problem is to simply remove the first two succession boxes (where we don't have any information from Rayment to use). Regards, Tryde (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tryde. I'm afraid I do feel you're being nitpicky. There is no MOS on succession boxes but I've incorporated the majority of your suggestions into the succession boxes I've created anyway. I will go in most instances with the name as given in the constituency article, as these seem to usually be right; if I'm unsure I'll give the name in the article title. Regarding the baronets, I thought previously you'd asked me to do it Sir X X, Bt if it was in a s-par box; now I'll do it however it's written in the constituency article. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use the name the person held when he was an MP. If he became a baronet after sitting in parliament, don't use the style "Sir X X, Bt", but simply "X X". And please add dates when several other MP's represented a constituency along with the MP the article is about. You did it before so I can't understand why you stopped. Tryde (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, I thought that Tryde's comment was a polite and friendly effort to help you improve your contributions to a point where others coukd expand them if they wanted to, but where they wouldn't need to tidying up even if no content was added. I think it's a pity that your reply wasn't more along the lines of "thanks for taking the time to explain that to me". :(

Tryde is right about the names: a lot of MPs changed their names due to inheritances, more of them got knighthoods or baronetcies, and a significant number later became peers, sometimes having a courtesy title before they succeeded. The constituency articles are not necessarily a sufficient guide to what name to use in a succession box, because more than the name may have changed while the person was an MP ... but it doesn't take long to check. E.g. X MP succeeded Sir Thingummy Wotsit, 96th Baronet: a quick check of Rayment's list of baronets will tell you when the 95th Baronet died, and that's the date when Sir Thingummy Wotsit, 96th Baronet succeeded to the title, so now you know whether or not he was a baronet at the relevant dates.

Similarly, Tryde is right wrt to the dates in the succession boxes. There isn't an MOS about this, but a lot of detailed work was put in a few years ago by

I have been really impressed by how in the last month, you really do seem to have tried to make stubs that are more than the bare minimum "Foo existed", and which don't need a lot of tidying up by others. I want to continue to believe that you are trying in good faith to produce better stubs ... so when an experienced editor politely points out a few needed tweaks, as Tryde did above, it'd be nice to see a little more good faith in your response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tryde, sorry for the delay in responding, I seem to have missed your last message. The reason I stopped adding the dates was because another editor removed them and I didn't want to spend time on this if there's not a clear consensus. Regarding the names, I think I'd just got out of the habit but have now been adding them.

BHG, thank you for your message. The reason I may have sounded snippy in the message to Tryde was because she was sending me suggestions almost daily, which would make any editor feel a bit harassed, especially as when I changed to Tryde's way of doing the succession boxes, several editors, including very experienced ones, changed them to a version nearer what I'd been doing originally, so I felt frustrated by the whole thing. Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...for correcting my mistake here. I didn't realize what I had done. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No bother, it was a useful addition as it showed up that the link to the other disambiguation page was missing. Thanks for your message, Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]