User talk:Nford24
| This is Nford24's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | Welcome to Nford24's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply. I will try to WP:PING you as well. Conversely if you are replying to something I've said on another talk page, reply there and include {{ping|Nford24}} to alert me. |
 | Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words. |
- Archives
RfC
[edit]Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for your country/region, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds like fun! Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 230, June 2025
[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Destubathon runs until the 16th of July
[edit]Hi, just a courtesy message to notify you in case you haven't seen the Wikipedia:The World Destubathon contest update in the last few days that we've decided to run the full month until the 16th of July. For those who have been too busy to contribute, we would love some help in reaching 4000 articles by Wednesday night! At present we're about 480 articles short!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Postnominals
[edit]You should read MOS:POSTNOM more carefully before making disruptive revert all edits. Your assertion that MOS:POSTNOM only applies to biography articles is plainly incorrect. I've copied the relevant paragraph below and bolded the relevant guidance for emphasis, which is discussing other articles beside biographies. This applies to all wikipedia pages that's why it's in the MOS. If you want to raise an rfc on this point go ahead, but it's pretty clear what the policy is at present and until there's new consensus existing guidance should be followed.
Post-nominals should only be mentioned at relevant places in a biography subject's own article (excepting the lead sentence), in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as a list of recipients of an award or other honour. For example, "Brian Lara TC OCC AM" should not appear in an article like Warwickshire County Cricket Club.
Ecrm87 (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- You're correct, it appears to have been added on 26 November 2017 [1] by SMcCandlish with the edit comment "Clarifications (technical and usage); cross-reference MOS:ACCESS; commas should be used (every style guide I've checked agrees on that).", Interstingly prior on, after and prior to 26 November 2017 MOS:ACCESS never even mentions postnominals, also after extensive checks on both talk pages I discovered that post-nominals were mentioned all of 8 times in the whole of 2017. It seems fairly clear to me that the addition of that caveat was made without prior discussion or consensus. Thankyou for bringing it to My attention, it should be discussed. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 00:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Are you happy then to go back to the new edit until a new consensus emerges? I should point out those edits also contain other changes under Wikipedia:NOPIPE including using full names for peers, which has consensus support on other UK articles (see List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom for example). I should also point out that removing 'The Honourable' and 'The Right Honourable' from lists is in keeping with MOS:PREFIX which states: In general, honorific prefixes and suffixes should not be included. Ecrm87 (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, that's the one. I agree with the policy as written (studding names in prose with "Hon." would generally be a bit annoying, and I don't think they're super relevant in many list contexts. I do think that lists of children in the "Family" section of individuals are a natural exception to that general rule ("The Hon." is entirely about whose family you belong to, and it's consistent with the sources those sections are derived from), but my experience is that argument with people whose special interest is Wikipedia policy and guidelines (I don't remember who this was) is rarely productive, so I gave it up as a bad job and went on.
- In the context of the lists given here, "Rt. Hon." would be slightly more defensible in that it's bestowed on Privy Councillors (that is, it marks a certain political importance) but peers of a certain rank are also entitled to it, so I think I'd say it's better to follow the general guidance and omit both prefixes. Choess (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- That's understandable, but this is ultimately meant to be an encyclopaedia, and in formal list contexts, especially for figures like Governors-General and senior military officers, official sources do include both prefixes and post-nominals. For instance, the official list of former Governors-General of Australia (https://www.gg.gov.au/about-governor-general/former-governors-general) uses full titles and honours for each officeholder. I think it's reasonable that we reflect that level of formality and accuracy in our own lists.
- This isn't really about peers or inherited titles, it's about accurately representing notable public officeholders in a format that aligns with how they are formally documented. I understand the concern about honorifics becoming excessive or cluttered in prose, but in structured list formats (where brevity isn’t the primary goal), style preferences alone probably shouldn't outweigh consistency with reliable sources and encyclopaedic tone. In that sense, I think WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is relevant here, discomfort with how something looks or reads isn't, on its own, a strong reason to override verifiability or established usage. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Are you happy then to go back to the new edit until a new consensus emerges? I should point out those edits also contain other changes under Wikipedia:NOPIPE including using full names for peers, which has consensus support on other UK articles (see List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom for example). I should also point out that removing 'The Honourable' and 'The Right Honourable' from lists is in keeping with MOS:PREFIX which states: In general, honorific prefixes and suffixes should not be included. Ecrm87 (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 231, July 2025
[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)