User talk:TedEdwards

TedEdwards is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia at some point hopefully (but not for a long while)

Home

Talk

Sandboxes

Userboxes

Tabs

Twinkle

Edits

It is approximately 7:43 PM where this user lives ( UK). [refresh ]

Correct time

This is TedEdwards's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Archives list by date 1)12 May 2014 - 24 November 2015 2)6 December 2015 - 25 February 2016 3)27 February 2016 - 19 April 2017 4)23 April 2017 - This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

The day isn't over yet. However, given that presidents are sworn in at noon Eastern, I'll let the edit stand.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ted! I've seen your recent edit on Parsons re: Fellowship. You might need to remove the 'FRSA' suffix from the main paragraph. Also, is there a way you tracked the Fellowship? I assume at one point the subject was a Fellow, for example, what if he re-joins? Good job on picking-up on this. JPA24 (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are interpreting

Think I see the source of your mistake now. The guideline states a title is capitalized when it “is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office”—not when it can be used that way. Under your reading, every title would always be capitalized, because every title can be used as a substitute for the name of the officeholder during their time in office. Under the correct interpretation, however, such titles are capitalized only when they are actually used to refer to the specific person, which they are not in the ledes of the articles you edited. Hope that helps. Wallnot (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallnot: Sorry yes I did misinterpret it what the guideline says somewhat (please note I'm British and am therefore prone to understatement). So Liz Truss became Foreign Secretary I think is correct, but Liz Truss became the Foreign Secretary isn't, just because of the definite article. That said, I do find it a bit strange as a result that until recently most articles failed to abide by this guideline in their ledes, especially because guidelines are decided by consensus... --TedEdwards 22:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just thought you might find this funny. Yesterday evening you reverted an IP editor who said Kemi Badenoch would be the candidate eliminated in today's ballot, turns out it was actually Tom Tugendhat. I think IP needs a new crystal ball! Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: Yeah it quite ironic isn't it? It also reminds us why Wikipedia has a consensus not to treat these psychics as reliable sources, doesn't it?! Though I'm not sure that consensus is explicitly worded anywhere... --TedEdwards 21:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to ask why you don't like the more detailed info box. If you think having 9 parties is unnecessary then you could have removed all but Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and SNP. It is also the standard template for most major upcoming elections see

Hi

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE

, the latter saying The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. With regard to "other stuff exists", that does not mean one article can't do the same as another, but to make a valid arguement on doing that, I think a) you need to say why it works on that article and b) why it will work on this article.

So, looking at the US House elections, there are only two parties in that House. This means Template:Infobox election is a good idea for the 2022 election because not much detail needs to be brought across, so using that infobox (which, in terms of information, only adds photos of the leaders) is a good choice, as there is room for less essential detail. However, with the UK election, there are many more than two parties, and for the next election, especially since it is likely over a year away, you can't say which of the many parties will be significant in representing to overall result; for example, a previously minor party could recieve a large swing (take 2015 with the swing to SNP, which I don't think was predicted say in early 2014). So while after elections the minor parties can be excluded, before an election you don't know which those parties are, so the best position is to include all the parties, but remove the photos as less-essential detail, to meet the purpose of an infobox to summarise key facts.

Regarding the Finnish elections, I think that the previous election's infobox has way too much information for a reader to absorb. So if I had anything to do with that page (I don't due to my somewhat lack of knowledge of Finnish politics) I would probably overhaul that infobox. --TedEdwards 21:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is surly not relevant what may or may not happen in the election. The purpose of the infobox before the election is to display information about the state of parliament before the election. Therefor the information provided by the infobox is of value as it shows how the situation has changed. See the infobox regarding the next German federal election it is a PR multi party system meaning the results of the election could be wildly different from the one before. Yet it still uses the more in-depth infobox. — RealFakeKimT 10:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're right when you say what the purpose of the infoboxes for future elections is. But TILE does that to the same degree of detail as TIE, bar the photos of the leaders, which are good to have but are not essential so I believe they should be removed if there's a lot of parties (in other words, a lot of detail needs to be conveyed about the current state of Parliament). I think your comparison when the next German election isn't valid, as there are only 6 parties in the Bundestag (technically 7, but it's fairly common to count CDU and CSU as one, as you might already know) so there's more room for less essential detail i.e. the leaders' portraits. But there are 11 parties in the House of Commons, which a) too many for TIE to represent and b) even if TIE could include that number of parties it still wouldn't be a good idea as you're giving the reader too much information to absorb at a glance (see the quote I took earlier taken from

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) with the added leaders' portraits. --TedEdwards 22:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a reliable source and you don't know that they "have no idea" where it's from. If it's an RS and it supports the statement then it can be used as the source. Romomusicfan (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Romomusicfan: Yes, if it actually said explicitly that Ncuti was appearing in the anniversary specials, which it doesn't. The way you're interpreting the caption is really clutching at straws. --TedEdwards 16:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]