User talk:Edward Jocob Philip Smith
Images in infoboxes[edit]
Thank you for all your contributions! Please also note when adding images to infobox, you don't need the filename, not the whole File: template, as per WP:IBI. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Could you please explain the rationale for your edits to the above page? Wikipedia policies on names are fairly clear, to quote MOS:SURNAME:
- 'A member of the nobility may be referred to by title if that form of address would have been the customary way to refer to him or her; for example Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, may become the Earl of Leicester, the Earl, or just Leicester (if the context is clear enough) in subsequent mentions. For modern-day nobility it is better to use name and title...'
When in list form as the edits you changed were, this would seem to suggest that using 'The Earl of' is inappropriate as it is too vague. Additionally piping the link to 'The Earl of' violates WP:NOPIPE. Is there a consensus on using 'The Earl of' in tables and lists? If not the lists should be left as they were. Ecrm87 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but if you look at any other wikipedia page it is styled simply "title" and you only require basic knowledge to distinguish peers in government. Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Any other wikipedia page, such as? Please define 'it', given that what you're saying flies in the face of all the cited guidelines. I would also say that you're making a pretty massive leap by saying basic knowledge is needed to distinguish peers. For example you might have a father and son holding the same office separated by a couple of decades, based on what you're saying they would both be labelled 'The Earl of Yarmouth' (for example) with nothing to distinguish them. That argument also isn't supported under MOS:SURNAME, which mandates full name at first usage. I have not been able to find anything in Wikipedia policies on lists to the contrary. Ecrm87 (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- William Ewart Gladstone, Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury can't be asked to put more Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether any of those articles fit wikipedia policies, but have created a discussion about this on the MOS talk page to find out what the consensus is. Ecrm87 (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- William Ewart Gladstone, Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury can't be asked to put more Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Any other wikipedia page, such as? Please define 'it', given that what you're saying flies in the face of all the cited guidelines. I would also say that you're making a pretty massive leap by saying basic knowledge is needed to distinguish peers. For example you might have a father and son holding the same office separated by a couple of decades, based on what you're saying they would both be labelled 'The Earl of Yarmouth' (for example) with nothing to distinguish them. That argument also isn't supported under MOS:SURNAME, which mandates full name at first usage. I have not been able to find anything in Wikipedia policies on lists to the contrary. Ecrm87 (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi! The only trimming i did to the infobox was to remove a wrong duplicate "works" parameter (which you brought back) and the "Education" parameter. I still believe that the school that he attended is not even close to a key fact (see Manual of Style for Infoboxes) and it's not used in any composer's infobox, or at least in any that i've seen. I would like to hear your reasoning as to why this is such a relevant fact. Cheers — Gor1995 𝄞 11:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's just such a samll difference. I myself went on the page to see where he was educated and had to scroll through it for 5 minutes trying to find the info. At least some people will look to see that so it's worth adding. Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
As you won't stop[edit]
I shall now take it further. KJP1 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- What will you do, and why? Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Are you also having difficulty with rampant "Sir", "Dame", etc. reverters?![edit]
The mass insanity! I feel like it's a gross misinterpretation of the text here MOS:SIR or idk. And they're just doing it with no discussion, adamantly as if there already was consensus, when all there seems to be was simply past upheaval and fracas. I just noticed it at Alan Bates. But just his one page, which is why it's so peculiar. Why are you not then going to Maggie Smith, Helen Mirren, Michael Caine, and so forth? Does. Not. Compute. Anyway, just wanted to reach out ASAP once I noticed your brouhaha too. Atchom, Nford24, et al.
And I found their previous "consensus".......Please use this as a defense for anyone they try to strip the use of the prefix from. There might be a few they win with, but I'm sure you'll find most will lose due to the fact that journalists tend to refer to them honorifically once they are so honored:
Editors should also take care not to impose an honorific title prefix inline on subjects who have received a title but which is not significantly referred to in general media when discussing that particular subject.
In my case, Alan Bates was immediately referred to as Sir for the last year of his life, and every subsequent year after his death. And Maggie, Judi Dench, Helen, Michael, Anthony Hopkins, and so forth, get the same kind of treatment.
Keep me posted! --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 07:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.