User talk:ZeroAlpha87

Hi ZeroAlpha87, I noticed you "undid" (reverted) several of your edits at Order of the Garter using the undo function. An easier way to to revert a series of edits is to pull up the last "good" version from History. Click on the time/date stamp in History which will pull up that version, there will be a box at top with a link [restore this version], just click that and it will revert all edits that occurred afterward in one click/one edit. If you ever have questions or need help, you can ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia is a work in progress. It may take years for articles to be created, but, as you have discovered, redlinks are acceptable for articles that should be created at some point in the future. This means that when the article is created, the links are already in place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

]

Refer to the sections within the Manual of Style that I have contravened, please. I am happy to conform to a house style (so long as it is not wrong, no matter how long established), but, in those particular articles, I believe it is necessary to differentiate between how recipients were styled when the orders were conferred and how they went on to be styled. For example, in the article titled 'Royal Family Order of Edward VII', which I have not edited, it *does* give the recipients' styles at the time of their becoming members; why is it different for the other articles? I look forward to hearing from you. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you already, several times. We don't use honorific prefixes on wikipedia. The style I'm reverting to is the same style at Royal Family Order of Edward VII. "Queen Alexandra" is no different from "Queen Alexandra" and claiming they are different is absurd. DrKay (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, especially regarding Queen Alexandra? The issue is not whether 'we' use honorific prefixes on Wikipedia; I said that I am happy to conform to this, and could easily remove all the 'HM's and 'HRH's. However, I object to your changing back articles to having some people listed with their titles/styles as they are now, or later became, and others listed with their titles/styles as they were at the time the orders were presented to them. For example, Princess Margaret became The Countess of Snowdon in 1961, and Princess Alexandra became The Hon Lady Ogilvy in 1988; the article on Edward VII's order appears to consider this point. This inconsistent approach is, unfortunately, what I have come to expect, not helped by a rigid approach to maintaining style, regardless of how arguably ill-conceived it is, at the expense of sense. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Alexandra is called Queen Alexandra at the Edward VII article. DrKay (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: another example of the inconsistency that I keep raising! Note what is below her name in that article: 'The Princess of Wales later Queen Mary', for example. I should argue that 'Queen Alexandra' should, therefore, be 'The Queen later Queen Alexandra'; the only reason that I have not changed it to this is that I did only the articles on Elizabeth II, George VI and George V in the time that I had available earlier today. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just call her Queen Alexandra at all the articles. DrKay (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay, I do not understand your approach to this at all; there appears to be no logic to it, from my perspective. I, therefore, recommend no further communication on the issue - here or anywhere. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the report you filed at AE as it was malformed and did not seem to be related to any arbitration decision. If you have any questions feel free to ask. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for that report's being 'malformed', but I am not as au fait with Wikipedia protocols as perhaps you administrators are. I do have a question, yes. Is that feel free to ask here, on your talk page or somewhere else? In any case, it is how do I report a user for what I believe amounts to his/her abusing his/her position? Ideally, this will be achieved without going through an obstacle course... ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XRV can be used if you're challenging a specific administrative action. Have you attempted to resolve this with the editor in question yet? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, Wikipedia jargon is a foreign language to me; could you explain it in layman's terms, please? I have tried to engage in healthy debate with the editor in question to absolutely no avail; it led to two of my article talk page topics' being shut down. This explains my request for his/her behaviour to be reviewed and, I hope, censured. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

]

Here is the edit summary for my latest revision to that article:

'"Stranger" is not in the citation, either. Perhaps, because of this and the removal of the "Companion" that I included before the revert, this article's inclusion in the "Extra Knights Companion of the Garter" should be removed, too.'

So, who put 'Stranger' in the original? That user did not cite a reliable source, yet it seems to have gone unchallenged. Likewise, the category of 'Extra Knights Companion of the Garter' is wrongly applied if Adolphus Frederick V was not a 'Stranger Knight Companion', as those terms are equivalent... ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

]

Hi, Celia Homeford. Thank you for informing me about 'minor edits', using the example of 'changing a substantive honour to an honourary [sic; 'honorary'] or non-substantive one'. I shall bear in mind this policy going forwards. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

]

I was not the original author of the material that you dispute; I reverted your edit based on what I deemed to be an unhelpful edit summary. Maybe re-read 'Help:Edit summary', particularly this bit: 'You should explain your edits, but without being overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines, or principles of good writing...' ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open University

Hello ZeroAlpha87. I have just opened a discussion thread at Talk:Open University in which you might be interested. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Martinevans123. I appreciate your having done that; I shall wade into the debate now. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just letting you know that I’ve reverted your edits to United Kingdom honours order of wearing and Australian honours order of wearing, because the articles show the order which the honours are worn & their precedence, not what a recipient would be known as “recipient of” etc. That’s fluff that isn’t necessary on the articles. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nford24 In that case, why is there 'fluff' such as 'Knight/Lady Companion' before 'Order of the Garter'? The usual lack of Wikipedia consistency that I tried to do something about... ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made spelling changes to

]

FYI

The last big discussion about "t/The Bahamas" was here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion, and

MOS:THECAPS, I'll be reverting some page moves. @Firefangledfeathers: To be clear, the disambiguation should be "(Bahamas)", and not "(The Bahamas)", correct? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think we discussed disambiguation, but I'd think (Bahamas) for sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, most other examples, such as bands (The Beatles), do drop "The" from the disambiguator (Revolver (Beatles album), Something New (Beatles album), Every Little Thing (Beatles song), The End (Beatles song)). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My experience matches yours. Sorry for the slight tangent on your talk page ZA87! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

The comma you have been removing from several peers' articles actually needs to be there. It is paired with the first comma of the article, that which is immediately following the peerage title. It is also called the closing comma. See

, bullet point 2: "Don't let other punctuation distract you from the need for a comma, especially when the comma collides with a bracket or parenthesis".

Here's a step-by-step explanation as to why it is needed. The second comma is marked with "here".

                                                  here: v
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, was a British peer.

After adding the lifespan:

                                                                                     here: v
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024), was a British peer.

After adding the postnominals (preceding the lifespan, which in turn is preceding the closing comma):

                                                        <postnominals>                         and here: v
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, OM, GBE, CVO (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024), was a British peer.

For people without a peerage title – or something similar that is enclosed by commas – there should be no comma, so you were right about the comma you removed here.

Thanks for understanding. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I disagree, and can see nothing in 'WP:COMMA' or in the your step-by-step guide that actually explains why commas in this context are needed. I know a fair bit about the 'closing comma', indeed having spent much of my time on Wikipedia adding commas where they should be, mostly to close non-restrictive appositives. My feeling with peerage titles is that they are integral to someone's name, forming part of it once allocated, and so are not parenthetical; it becomes one unit.

Because of this, more discussion is needed, I believe. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello, and thanks for responding.

I take it from your mentioning of the closing comma that we at least agree on the following:

"On February 12, 2000 construction workers came across ...". With 2000 workers, that must have been a very large construction site (irony). That is obviously wrong grammatically, and what the author means is this:

"On February 12, 2000, construction workers came across ...".

Are we in agreement so far?

In response to your view that the peerage titles are integral of someone's name, and (implicitly, as I guess you mean) not a reason for a closing comma, see for instance:

Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling

Wedding of Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, and Mary Donaldson

and other articles in Category:European royal weddings. (The article on the Wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles was previously named "Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles", i.e. there was a closing comma.) So even when the title can be viewed as an integral part of someone's name, grammar seems to apply.

If we go to the very first example in my post above, without the lifespan and without the postnominals, do you think the second comma is needed?

If not, doesn't that make "Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild" into something similar to a dangling modifier? The clause would be "4th Baron Rothschild was a British peer". There is no verb left for "Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild", which would be left dangling.

Or if you think it's needed there, at which of the later steps does it go away? When adding the lifespan? That would be in contradiction of the quote from the WP:COMMA guideline above. Or when adding the postnominals, on the other side of the lifespan parenthetical? That wouldn't make sense.

Where do you suggest this is discussed further?

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon; likewise.

Yes, I can definitely see the ambiguity in that first example, which, I suppose, is a good illustration of how punctuation, while designed to be helpful, can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

In the case of 'Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling', it could be argued that, if the Oxford comma is being used, that three people were involved; of course, even without the comma, it could mean that either two or three people were involved, and we must rely on common sense and logic to interpret it.

In the first example of your original post here, no, I do not believe that a comma is needed. Still, I acknowledge what you have said about 'dangling modifiers', but I do not believe that this is something to which that precise term applies. I reckon that 'Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild' to be a single unit, as '4th Baron Rothschild' distinguishes him from anyone else with that exact set of first names and last name. A comma to close '4th Baron Rothschild' makes it, in my mind at least, removable material, thus able to alter the sense.

Post-nominal letters, in itself, is a murky topic, in my view. Although, again, perhaps not the best place to mention this, I have noticed that the manual of style on that subject is flouted in many articles, with the difference between 'full-size' ones, with commas, and 'small' ones, without, blurring into one. I maintain the view, though, that the comma after the lifespan details in even the last example of your first post this morning to be redundant.

As for further discussion, I believe that, pending a consensus, which - let's face it - probably is never going to be reached, the manual of style needs to be updated to include this very contention. Had I seen it in there before now, then I might have been persuaded not to make the changes - not because I agree with the points, but because it is in black and white.

Despite our disagreement on this, I thank you for taking the time and effort to do what you have done today. Unlike some editors/administrators that revert edits seemingly on a whim, and appear to think that, whereas other people must explain their actions, they do not have to, you embody what I think Wikipedia should be about: healthy debate and constructive criticism.

All the best. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]