Talk:Florence Nagle

High Court case
The Story of Your Life: A History of The Sporting Life Newspaper (1859—1998) (page 79) says Nagle's case against the Jockey Club was struck out by a High Court judge in January 1966 but she appealed and in February the Law Lords allowed her to proceed. Comments by Law Lords Denning, Salmon and Danckwerts left little doubt in anyone's mind as to the coming judgment, and after a five-minute hearing later in the year, Mr Justice Sachs found in her favour. This source attributes the quote, "If she is to carry on her trade without stooping to subterfuge she has to have a training licence", to Denning alone.

This conflicts with what we currently say,

but I don't have access to the source for the current text, Curling, Bill (April 1971). "Florence Nagle: Stud and Stable Magazine" 10 (4). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My source just says it was the verdict of the Law Lords, they can't have repeated in chorus so it probably was just Denning, as the senior judge, he would have summed up. That it took Nagle three attempts to get it to appeal is most likely correct. My source is emphatic on that, and as it is a reputable source, and was written in 1971 when all the protagonists were still alive and able to sue, it's almost certainly correct. Giano    (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's your call, Giano. A great topic, by the way. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's good piece of fun isn't it. Stud and Stable make it sound as though the three law Lords made the decision; however it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they only made their damning comments and gave her leave to appeal to another court. British legal law regarding appeals has changed since those days, so I'm not too sure what the system was in those days, so it's quite possible that both my and your source are correct. I attributed the quote to Denning as he would certainly have done the talking. Interestingly, the ODNB makes it sound as though it never came to court at all, which is quite wrong.  Giano    (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Our article is already better than the ODNB entry I think. Eric   Corbett  16:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've not been able to find anything about her taking the Kennel Club to court, but this (only a blog, I know) suggests that the threat of legal action was all that was required. Richerman    (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have quite a bit of information about the Kennel Club case (from two books) including dates etc and her various official positions in some canine societies - I will try to get it added tomorrow, so no need to use Cavill's blog.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  18:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking of using it as a reference (perish the thought!) just pointing out the discrepancy. Richerman    (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

revert
You know, I suspected I might get reverted immediately, but stupidly tried to help out anyway. What mistakes and misunderstandings?

I was about to add some detail from the All England case report but won't bother. Have a nice day. 31.100.5.1 (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to offend you. You changed some British specific terminology that shouldn't be changed. Some wiki link changes were incorrect. A primary source was added that should not have been. I am One of Many (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My IP seems to have changed. A wholesale revert after 4 minutes is like a slap in the face, even if it is not intended to offend.


 * So, are you saying that every single one of my changes was incorrect?


 * Do you understand the difference between a law lord and a lord justice of appeal? When was Cyril Salmon promoted to the House of Lords?  I'll let other people decide whether it is helpful to try to corroborate the war record of her husband, or provide a reference to the law reports of her case in the court of appeal. 82.132.227.115 (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't take the hump. I really don't think that I am One of Many meant to offend you. Any research that you care to do for this page would be much appreciated, but it must be referenced - that's a Wikipedia rule that applies over the whole encyclopedia, not just here. There's a short new stub here about her sidekick, where I a really struggling to find information, perhaps you might care to look there too. Giano    (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There were things that probably didn't need to be reverted. But, for example changing the link The Kennel Club to the Kennel club completely changed the intended meaning. I know one feels offended when they get reverted, I have those feelings too.  I just try to come back and explain what changes I would like to make in those cases.  I have also found (as other editors here have found) that instead of making changes throughout an article and saving, make them at the paragraph of section level, so that if other need to make changes, there aren't many in a single change.  I am One of Many (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for recommending your preferred editing style. It does have the unfortunate consequence of clogging up the edit history with multiple tweakings. If you want to make further changes, why not just make them, rather than reverting?

To run through my changes diff: Clearly that was all a waste of time, as was writing this. Feel free to put some of this back if you like. I'm done here. 213.205.227.24 (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I linked 60th Rifles - which was actually the King's Royal Rifle Corps at the time.
 * I also added an inline comment asking for clarification of which Canadian unit James Nagle belonged to. There are several battalions of Canadian Highlanders. I also provided a link to a war record which suggests that he was an officer in the KRRC.
 * I linked the first instance of Kennel Club (not Kennel club). I see now I should have included the "The" (sorry) and someone else has repeated that edit.
 * I linked the first instance of Norah Wilmot and someone else has repeated that edit.
 * I added a citation to the law report of her Court of Appeal case. Nagle v Feilden [1966] 2 QB 633, [1966] 2 WLR 1027, [1966] 1 All ER 689.  It seems to me this is the best possible source for the decisions made by the judges, based on their view of the facts and the law presented to them by the litigants and their advocates.  It includes some details of the earlier decisions (it was not a third appeal - her case was summarily dismissed by a master, and then on appeal John Stephenson J in chambers; the second appeal, to the Court of Appeal, only succeeded because her advocates tried a slightly different argument, not based on contract law. There are some juicy quotes from all three of the judges. And the Court of Appeal only decided that there was an arguable case. I see no evidence of "The Establishment" influencing the legal decisions, notwithstanding what the esteemed legal correspondent of Stud and Stable Magazine says.)
 * I also corrected the references to law lords. Of the three judges on the panel in the Court of Appeal, only Lord Denning MR was a law lord (i.e. a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary; a judge of the House of Lords) in 1966.  Salmon did not become a law lord until 1972.  A Lord Justice of Appeal (i.e. court of appeal judge) is not a law lord.
 * I decapitalised "Managing director". Not sure why Managing still has a capital M if "director" has a lower case "d".
 * I linked United Racecourses, currently a redlink, but it was the owner of Epsom, Kempton, and Sandown.

One postscript: this was the house, Sulhamstead House, in Sulhamstead Abbots. 213.205.227.24 (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Image
There is another colour image in the 2008 Bo Bengtson book that shows Nagle in front of her Bentley with two of her Irish Wolfhounds (apparently taken in 1983 but doesn't seem to have a photographer credit); obviously not free use either though. Might be better than the group shot I've just added that also is not free use? She was chairman of the Ladies Kennel Association, which is why she's presenting the cup. I was able to date the photo as I recognise the other people in it and verified it with the LKA BIS results. SagaciousPhil  -  Chat  12:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Could the picture here, (3rd one down) be uploaded and Mrs. Groverman Ellis (Killybracken) be cropped out. It shows her quite clearly. Giano    (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really very good with images but I've had a shot at it - someone else might be able to do something better though?  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  12:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is one taken by Hay Wrightson at http://www.irishwolfhounds.org/sulhamstead1.htm. It was taken in 1948 and Wrightson died in 1949 which makes it out of copyright in 2019. In the meantime I'm sure it could be used under fair use.  Richerman    (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My thoughts would be to use the one when she's older as that's when she was campaigning?  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  13:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the "cropped" one that you have now. I have one in the Stud & Stable Magazine which shows her with the head lad who held the licence for her, but the one we are using now shows her features better. Giano    (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is an appropriate way to do more than one image, I think that is helpful; when I worked on Lady Wentworth, the lead has a protrait, but a later image is of her with her horses, thus showing an important aspect of her life. Photos at different ages can also be useful.  I have gotten articles through FAC with fair use images, FWIW.   Montanabw (talk)  13:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I understand it (hopefully wrongly), you can only use a fair use image if none other are available, so if you already have one on the page, that proves that one is already available. Looking at the Lady W images, they look to be older - arguably out of copyright? I'd be happy to proved wrong here, as it would be great to have more images - there's plenty out there. Giano    (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Recommend reduction in size, as the image is slightly blurry. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reduced it down - I now have her autobiography and may be able to scan a better picture to use from that.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  06:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Frame
I've made 5-attempts to 'frame' the image & each time it shrunk the image to 'bout three-quarters it size. Anyone know why that's happening? GoodDay (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, got it framed :) GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In!
What a great article subject! I'm in. Will be tweaking the horse stuff (that didn't sound right...) revert or give me an "old trout" as needed. Montanabw (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference formatting
At the moment various formatting styles are used for the references; would any one mind if I - or - change them to a consistent format? SagaciousPhil  -  Chat  05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope; I don't mind, wen you've foe it, can you look at the companion article Norah Wilmot and do the same? I'm ashamed to admit it, but I just can't get my back-to-front brain around formatting references, Giano    (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! I'm flying "down south" this morning - back on Thursday afternoon - BUT I've managed to arrange to pick up a copy of that Ferelith Somerfield biography for Florence we mentioned over at Eric's talk page, so hopefully I'll be able to get more information from that. So Eric might manage to get to fixing up the ref formatting on both before I do.   SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  08:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
Must we have that infobox? It shrinks the image and doesn't tell us anything that we can't read in five seconds from the text. Giano   (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought the choice re whether info box was used or not lay with the article creator; I do not think it should be used here either. As for it being "Infobox consistent feature throughout wikiproject horse racinga and wikiproject equine. Please discuss further, don't toss for no good reason" - this is not only a racing/equine article so I don't feel those Projects can force anything against the wishes of editors on this article. Giano, as the creator of the article, has stated they don't want it, I believe I am one of the major contributors and I don't want it, so in the meantime I am "tossing" it for those reasons.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  06:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that the general rule that the article creator should decide about infoboxes is a good idea. They are often a good idea when there is lots of information that can be nicely summarized in an infobox, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.  So, although I'm an infobox editor, I fully support the wishes of Giano. I am One of Many (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yes, as you probably know if I think I am the starter/principal contributor I revert infoboxes straight away, but this article has been such a very joyful collaboration, that I think we have all enjoyed doing (I certainly have) so I'm happy to go with a majority decision. Giano    (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As one of the other early contributors I agree that the infobox was totally unnecessary. I must say this article would be really good for a DYK but I don't want to put it up myself as I have nominated a number of my own and so would have to review some other article first. Would anyone be interested in doing it who hasn't done one before? In that case you don't have review one first. I would suggest a hook something like "Did you know that Florence Nagle challenged the sexist rules of the Jockey Club in the 1960s and the Kennel Club in the 1970s and won in both cases". I think there is a day left before it's out of time for a nomination. Richerman    (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like it to be a DYK, but I've never nominated one, and will get lost in procedure. Giano    (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Damn! I knew it would be horrible and stressful: Template:Did you know nominations/Florence Nagle; I tried to name us all too. Giano    (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think I can manage to fix that, although I do know we can't use the image as it's free use. I'll just see if the will drop by and in his always efficient helpful way sort it out for you.    SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  12:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As usual, thanks for the kind words. And, regarding your edit summary, you improved the situation, and of course you get points! M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It'll need a very clever brain to fix that. Sadly, I often have that effect on templates. Giano    (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to lead you into that morass Giano :-) I've managed to add you as the creator and fixed the formatting of the article title in my own amateurish way, but if you want to add other editors to it (there aren't any at the moment) perhaps best if you get Mandrax to sort it out. The problem with the template is you have to use plain text in the boxes without wiki formatting or it all goes haywire. Richerman    (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see where to add the other editors now. Giano, if you tell me who you would like to add as well as Phil (who I've added) I'll do it for you. I could make a guess but that would be presumptuous of me. Richerman    (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did name you all in the original attempt: you, Sag Phil, Eric, Dr B. Now I'm worried that I've forgotten somebody. Giano    (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added everyone who has made more than three or four minor edits and Mandrax has kindly sorted out my over-detailed formatting. If I've missed anyone out I apologise. Richerman    (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You forgot me, sniff sniff :( GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that was where I drew the totally arbitrary line at four edits. But if you're going to cry you can go to the ball if you really want to Cinders :-) Richerman    (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As an evidence provider in the great infobox war at arbcom, the decision was that it is to be decided on a case by case basis for every single individual article. (Which was the stupidest possible outcome for both sides of the issue, but we are stuck with it.)  Thus while I am therefore apparently in the minority here and therefore will not edit-war over the issue, I nonetheless feel that this is quite a ridiculous decision based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Infoboxes provide critical information to the non-expert reader and in my view, opposition to an infobox is snobbery in the extreme. (debates over the layout and design of the infobox is a different issue) With over 9.000 articles tagged for wikiproject horse racing, most (people and horses) have infoboxes and I think it is entirely appropriate here, given that we are dealing with the first licensed (lisenced?) woman horse trainer in the UK.  See, e.g. Aidan O'Brien. et. al.  (sigh, so tired of this even being an issue).  Really wish you folks would accept all the positive aspects of an infobbox beyond "oh gee, we want the picture to be a little bigger."  Seriously?  OK< end of rant, but geez, I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO tired of this issue.    Montanabw (talk)  05:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I couldn't care less about infoboxes, but can we not have a caption underneath the lead image? When was the photo taken? How old was Florence at the time? Eric   Corbett  18:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that there is a larger photo at the lead, would it now be possible to consider re-adding the infobox? We have it transcluded well over 500 times on various horse racing articles about various people, and if I can access racing post statistics, we can fill it out to add the standard parameters we use across WikiProject Horse racing on most of the trainer articles. I truly don't want to start an infobox war here, but I also truly believe that this article ought to have an infobox for consistency across horse trainer articles and such.   Montanabw (talk)  17:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I still don't see the benefit of an info box in this article; also she was predominantly a dog breeder.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  17:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Puzzled
I'm a bit puzzled by some of the little changes being made. First of all female jockeys to women jockeys. I wouldn't say "men jockeys", it would be "male jockeys" - so what's wrong with female jockeys? Secondly - Mrs Pankhurst to Emmeline Pankhurst - what does the source say? If it is Mrs Pankhurst then it shouldn't be changed as that is what she was known as. I think Emmeline was generally referred as Mrs Pankhurst at that time - that's just the way it was in those days. If the source says Emmeline then fair enough. Richerman   (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know (who's making the changes?) I've changed the quote back to to 'Mrs', perhaps I hadn't made it clear enough that it was a quote. I would probably sale 'male jockeys', but only because I'm quite into racing, and was racing when I was 14 and described as 'boy jockey;' but that's a translation from elsewhere and may not be the case in the modern UK. Giano    (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know who made those changes either, but I do remember Montanabw being quite insistent elsewhere recently on preferring "woman" to "female", for reasons I don't entirely understand. Eric   Corbett  18:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It was me, and yes, I feel very strongly that to call women "females" is, as a rule, to reduce us to the status of animals, while "men" remain the "real" humans. I utterly loathe being called "a female unless you are comparing me to a "male."  Montanabw (talk)  18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't car what 'wimmin' call themselves, providing it's not changed to 'lady' jockeys, because that would open another minefield - back to the days of gentlemen jockeys and professional jockeys, but, I suppose, on those days 'ladies' did not ride in races, but then were half of them 'ladies'? You see it's a minefield. Giano    (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, and hence my tweak of the DYK.  Montanabw (talk)  18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A bit like the gentlemen and players distinction in cricket I suppose. For what it's worth my preference is for "female" rather than "woman". When does a girl become a woman anyway? Eric   Corbett  18:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a question of law and culture, I suppose - when does a boy become a man? But this is not an issue for Nagle, anyway.  FWIW, my mother would scold me with the phrase "young lady" when I was four ... (and we scold boys saying "young man...")   :-P   Montanabw (talk)  18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to say who made the changes so it wouldn't sound accusatory as it's no big deal really. The edit summary for the change from female to woman says ("women" preferable to "female" as we are discussing the humans and not the horses ;-) and I was just interested to know what the problem was with female.  Richerman    (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussed above, but my mares are "females," references within biology may be "female", but when discussing human beings, we are women. Where "male" is used, "female" can be used as a parallel, but where we say "men", then "women is appropriate.   Worst is "men and females."  Just don't do that.  Where the feminine form is used alone with the generic term implying men/males (true of male-dominated fields), then "woman" is preferable. (i.e. male and female jockeys, but if one cannot say "jockeys" without implying men-only, then say women jockeys...)  Montanabw (talk)  18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's an American thing. I have no problem with being "female" nor with it being used.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  18:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've a feeling this is one of those questions that only a female can answer. I'm told (by my wife) that they are more logical and sound in their views. Giano    (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My wife tries that one on me as well, but let's wait and see what the women here think. Unusually, we're not short of them here. Eric   Corbett  19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Joking apart: I woudl love to have known Flo well. With her mink, Bentley, smart hat, three rows of natural pearls, and self-made success in what really was a man's world, I wonder what she would have made of today's more strident feminism and the way things have proceeded. I bet no man woudl have ever dared not offer her his seat to her, and she woudl have happily sat in it. Giano    (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have the impression that she wouldn't have approved, especially about the current trend for positive discrimination. But she was very clearly a formidable woman. BTW, where are all the feminists who're supposed to be interested in this kind of article? Eric   Corbett  20:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but if you really think there is a universal problem of positive discrimination against men, you haven't spent any time reading the horrible comments to things like the Zoe Quinn situation.  Montanabw (talk)  18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They've left all the actual work up to me, as usual... the rest of the people who claim the feminist label around here are too busy whining about how I'm acting like a man because I was telling them how to get things done around here. But can they bother creating actual content?  No, the drahmahz boards are more fun.  (Sorry, ranting.  Do forgive me)   Montanabw (talk)  18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't really the place for it, but have you noticed how very successful women, like say Margaret Thatcher, seldom bang on about feminism. I wonder if Frau Merkel does? My German's not good enough to know. Giano    (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thatcher was no feminist; she was a woman who accomplished significant things but had little interest in helping others. She was one of those women who slammed the door on other women once she got hers. Note her all-male cabinet.  Queen bee syndrome, I fear.   Montanabw (talk)  18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Margaret Thatcher never did. Perhaps Gerda can inform us about Frau Merkel. Eric   Corbett  20:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Folks, one of your fellow Brits is getting it. And the hate mail and awful trolling comments that go with it (Looks like they disabled comments on this clip, a week or so ago they were in there - and awful). Feminism is not that complicated, and Nagle clearly was one in the famous 1960s and would be today... maybe not fond of some aspects, but what part of "I am a feminist. I believe in equal rights for women" is complicated? ;-)   Montanabw (talk)  18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, she is impressive! I am One of Many (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone here is against feminists of find their wish for equality complicated, or wishes to send women back to scrubbing the kitchen floor - or whatever it is that they hate so much. However, in my experience, today, woman are quite able to achieve the same ambitions as men - so I fail to see what their problem is. Giano    (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh Giano, Giano, Giano... Do you want me to begin worldwide or only in the western world?  Where to begin? (Not on this talk page, not enough bandwidth).   Montanabw (talk)  05:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we have to keep waving the feminism flag here quite so much? Editing was much more pleasant without it. J3Mrs (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have mostly observed and contributed a little, but it looks to me that the creation of this article has been a very pleasant process for everyone involved. As with any endeavor, there are always disagreements, but the ones here look to me to be very gentle. I think it is important to keep in mind that she actually used the term feminist to describe herself.  So, I think discussing what terms might be best to use from a feminist perspective is reasonable for this article. I am One of Many (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd agree if this were the only place. J3Mrs (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feminists were "wanted" at Corbett's talk. So it was an open invitation. Sorry our existence offends you.   Montanabw (talk)  07:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been a great fun page to write. Flo did indeed describe herself as a feminist; so I don't have a problem with the term being used. She was made clear that she thought women should have equal rights in everything and here the y were important to her, she fought for them. While I doubt she woudl have ever burned her bra, but I can imagine her as a strident suffragette - she looks a tough old bird. By contrast her sidekick Norah Wilmot looks all fluffy and soft - that was probably a cunning ploy, and she was really very deadly.  Giano    (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say they both were pretty formidable!  Montanabw (talk)  07:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find they were pussy cats compared to Louie Dingwall. Giano    (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikignoming
Moved one sentence about dog breeding from the background section to the dog section, had to re-jig some other wording while doing so, Hope I did not mess up any references in doing so, I presumed any ref covered material from the previous one, and thus copied a couple, If I screwed up anything, I shall meekly accept appropriate trout-whacking. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You have messed up all the sourcing - I do not intend to spend my time going through it to re-check everything that you have distorted so I suggest you revert these and also the continual changing of female to woman, which is not an offensive term as you are trying to imply. Evidently my work is not up to the standard you believe to be acceptable and as I've stated elsewhere your edit summaries are also deliberately disparaging.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  20:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not think I did. I moved very little text, and the sources at the end moved with it.  I happen to have a lot of GA and FA class articles to my credit, several reviewed by Eric Corbett.  I am tired of your OWNERSHIP here and suggest that you get a grip.  You all have invited "feminists" to this page, and you've got one.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  20:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did, but Eric has fixed it now. To be honest, I have no ownership issues and respectfully suggest I have no need to "get a grip".   SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  14:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK new proposal
Would any of the other nominators like to comment on the latest proposal at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Florence_Nagle ? Richerman   (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance
Congratulations folks, on getting this article on Wikipedia's main page 'DYK' section. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

James Nagle's regiment
There have been a couple of attempts to link James's regiment given in the article as the Canadian Highlanders and 60th Rifles. I know nothing about military history but a google sesrch for this term comes up blank so I think it is probably not the correct name. The nearest I can find is the The Royal Regina Rifles who had The 60th Rifles of Canada as part of their lineage. The 60th rifles were formed in 1913 and amalgamated in 1920 so the timescale seems about right. Richerman   (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just been double checking in the Somerfield book, unfortunately it only states Canadian Highlanders and 60th Rifles. I've been looking under the BNA to see if I can find a death notice for him (died in 1933) without any success so far ... once Flo has had her moment in the spotlight on the main page, I'll try to add more to the article generally. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 10:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Her ODNB article names it as the King's Royal Rifle Corps - I don't have any military knowledge - would that be the right one? SagaciousPhil  - Chat 10:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the one someone linked it to but, from the article, they seem to be North American rather than Canadian. Looking at the List of infantry battalions in the Canadian Expeditionary Force the only other 60th Rifles I can find (and this military stuff usually seems to be pretty comprehensive) are the 60th Battalion (Victoria Rifles of Canada), CEF. They embarked for Great Britain on 4 November 1915 and left for France on the 21 February 1916. Unless someone can confirm who the regiment was, maybe we should just say he was fighting with the Canadian expeditionary force. Richerman    (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're right otherwise we're constantly going to have it being linked/unlinked etc etc ... it's still not any help and continuing to show my military ignorance but might this be him? Doesn't offer any further clarity even if it is him though! SagaciousPhil  - Chat 10:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It could well be as it starts off with Canadian infantry and moves on to King's Royal Rifle Corps - so maybe that is the right link after all. Rereading the King's Royal Rifle Corps article, they were a British regiment originally recruited and raised in North America and I think that "North America" in the article includes Canada. However, your ignorance on this subject is matched only by mine. Perhaps as the ODNB says King's Royal Rifle Corps we should go with that. Richerman    (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I've changed it .... SagaciousPhil  - Chat 11:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, we've got a reference for it that's a better source than a dog breeding web page so I'm happy to take the flak if some military historian complains :-) Richerman    (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Importance rating
As this article was originally not given an importance rating for the WikiProject Feminism I looked for their importance criteria and couldn't find any. I then asked on their talk page eight days ago what the criteria were and no-one has replied. In the meantime the article was rated as low importance for that project and looking at this I thought she must more important to the project than pop stars, actors and suchlike and re-rated it to mid importance. This change has since been reverted by user:Montanabw so I'm confused. What are the importance criteria for that project? Richerman   (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I rollbacked myself. I guess if there is no criteria, it's anyone's guess.  My own gut instinct is to rate everything "low" unless there is a good reason to raise it, but I really have to admit that absent guidelines, it's anyone's guess.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  01:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Florence Nagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228134450/http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/418340/kennel_club_year_book_k_section_2013.pdf to http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/418340/kennel_club_year_book_k_section_2013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)