User talk:A.D.Hope

Military History Newcomer of the Year, 2023

 * Many congratulations, well-merited recognition of your work on here. KJP1 (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I appreciate the kind words, especially given the high quality of your own edits. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Your edit of 3 June 2023 to "Gwynedd"
Greetings and felicitations. I just discovered that an edit you made to Gwynedd included



as a reference (currently it's used twice, for separate references). Unfortunately, "sveltekit-prerender" is not a valid domain name, and thus "http://sveltekit-prerender/visualisations/censusareachanges/W06000002/" is not a valid URL. I'm letting you know, as I do not have a solution for this and I am hoping that you do. (A Web search did turn up https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/censusareachanges/W06000002/ .) —DocWatson42 (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello! This is the URL:
 * https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/censusareachanges/W06000002/
 * For some reason the auto-cite feature doesn’t create a citation with the correct URL from that part of the ONS website — I generally correct it manually, but clearly didn’t in this case! Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Would you mind making the correction? I’m on mobile and it’s bit cumbersome, thats all.
 * Enjoy the last few hours of 2023 (assuming it still is where you are!) A.D.Hope (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll make the correction, though it will be sometime tonight. —DocWatson42 (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Scotland
Hi, as someone who strives to bring articles up to Good Article status, you should know that the guidance for leads on country articles is ''The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article).'' See WPCTEMPLATE which confirms this. Also, please research the previous review of the articles good status review, which raises the lack of information regarding location in the world (i.e northwestern Europe) as a reason the article was delisted. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The introduction to Scotland does give its name, location, and bordering countries and seas. That information doesn't all need to be in the lead sentence. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not give its location in the world, it states that it is a country of the United Kingdom and talks about the geography of the British Isles. Location in the world is where the country is situated, i.e, northwest Europe. See other articles as examples. This was flagged during a review of the articles good article status, and merely trying to bring the article back up to the status of a good article by following the guidance on lead paragraphs for countries. Your reverted edit makes no mention to the location of Scotland in the world. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The current lead sentence is consistent with England and Wales. There may be an argument for including Scotland's location in Europe in the lead, but Talk:Scotland is the place to raise that. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And I would advocate for the position of both England and Wales in the world to also be included in the first sentence of the lead paragraph in line with all other international countries. I have raised this at the talk page on the Scotland article. Not everything has to be compared to both the England and Wales articles, as such, that is a matter for their respective talk pages. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * England is a GA article. 2A00:23C7:69B4:7101:6437:2C28:E928:7E19 (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * From 2009, in fairness. I think the current article is in reasonable shape, but this is the version which passed the GA review. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, A.D.Hope. Thank you for your work on Craig Gwaun Taf. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   05:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Paula Vennells
Please engage in the talk page discussion (Talk:Paula Vennells). So far, I don't see anyone agreeing with the point you are making. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Using maps as a source
Personally I wouldn't use the ONS map as a source for "official names" as they may have cut them down for easy visualising on the map. I doubt Herefordshire should be "County of Herefordshire".  Dank Jae  02:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh
What is gained by taking out information that could be seen as helpful and adding either enlightenment or educational opportunities? I really wish you could understand that. Summerdays1 (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a comment for the talk page discussion at Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, not my user talk page. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not especially, seeing that I disagree with the three of you. I don't know why you can't defend your perspective on your own talk page. Summerdays1 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Per your user page you asked for feedback and when you ""are being a nuisance". I'd say that's now. Summerdays1 (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My talk page is a less appropriate place to discuss this than the article talk page, which is where other editors would expect to find it. Please move back to that discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you continue it on my talk page? This has little to do with that one article other than yes, I disagree with your premise. If you went to many other articles on here and removed information either saying that the article's overall size was the factor or that the facts were superfluous, you would not only be hastily reverted but you would be told that your views are antiquated. Summerdays1 (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, please keep the discussion at Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. That's where the dispute lies. A.D.Hope (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing to disagree
While we do disagree - quite fundamentally, I think - on matters related to policy, process and procedure, we respect each other's content contributions. Collaborative approaches to improve content are fundamental for me, and I hope that we can work together again in that area, present disagreements notwithstanding. KJP1 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, KJP. I'm sure it took a lot to offer an olive branch, and I very much appreciate it. Our interests overlap and we're bound to bump into each other again (I was just looking at Wightwick Manor, could be up your street), and I'd much rather it be on friendly terms. We've worked together well before, as you kindly mentioned in relation to Dolwyddelan Castle, so it must be possible to do it again!
 * To be quite honest I'm not sure how I got embroiled in so many drawn-out discussions at once, although Montacute is obviously my own fault. I will agree with you that I can be too dogged for my own good, and I can understand your frustration with that. It's something I'll work on. I do hope you don't really think that I just bulldoze through other editors, though. I try to think of the person behind the screen, even when we don't agree, but maybe it looks different from the other side. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In you don't already know it, the is one of the best architectural blogs around,, in my humble opinion. I doubt it would be considered RS - although I don't think I've ever tried - but it is exceptionally well-researched. KJP1 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I will certainly have a look. Thank you very much, KJP! A.D.Hope (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Please Support my Wikipedia Library Request
Hi,

Sorry for using your talk page, but I couldn't think of a better way to access you. You have shown an interest in British (Country House) Architectural History. I have suggested that Wikipedians gain access to the Country Life Archive on The Wikipedia Library (https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/suggest/). Please feel free to support this suggestion (titled "Country Life Archive (Proquest)" on the above page) if you think this is a good idea.

Feel free to @ me here with any questions.

Cheers, EPEAviator (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Cumbria
Hallo, Thanks for working on this but I thought the LDNP ought to be more prominent in the paragraph so I've had a go at re-wording it. There's scope for more improvement, I'm sure. I also found a source re part of NYMNP being in Cumbria, seemed worth adding to source that last sentence. Pam D  20:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't mind you re-jigging my re-jig at all, but is there any particular reason for giving the Lakes priority? While we're on the Lakes, would you call them 'central', or more 'south-west'? If you take Ullswater to be approximately in the middle of the county, most of the national park is to the south and west of it is all. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

City Region articles
Evening A.D. Just so you know, I stayed out of this prior discussion as one of the involved editors was particularly problematic (as you experienced yourself). Just so you know, that user has "retired" from wikipedia. To not get into all the drama; I'd be happy to start the conversation properly about how to handle City Region articles as they are currently incredibly inconsistent. I would have started the conversation myself, but you had done the initial legwork etc so don't want to appear to be jumping in. There has been some more recent activity at the LCR page with interested editors. No rush of course, just a heads up. Koncorde (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yorkshire Dales
I don't want to edit war but I feel your changes to the lead are making it less clear and more amibiguous. The point the sentence is trying to communicate is twofold: that the national park includes most of the dales, but excludes Nidderdale; and that (conversely) it includes the Orton and Howgill Fells, even though they are not dales (i.e. not valleys). Your currently suggested wording "...except the Nidderdale area, and the Howgill Fells and Orton Fells" could be taken by the reader, unless they pay particularly careful attention to the commas, to mean that all the areas mentioned are excluded, which is the opposite if what is intended with regard to the fell areas. Can we come up with a wording that solves whatever problem you have with the original wording but that is not misleading? Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a problem. The full sentence is 'The Yorkshire Dales National Park is a 2,178 km2 (841 sq mi) national park in England covering the Yorkshire Dales, except the Nidderdale area, and the Howgill Fells and Orton Fells.' It's clear that only the area within the commas is excluded from the national park.
 * If the intended meaning was that Nidderdale, the Howgills, and Orton Fells weren't included in the national park despite being Yorkshire Dales then it would read 'The Yorkshire Dales National Park is a 2,178 km2 (841 sq mi) national park in England covering the Yorkshire Dales, except the Nidderdale area, Howgill Fells, and Orton Fells.' A.D.Hope (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I still think "except the Nidderdale area, and the Howgill Fells and Orton Fells" is distinctly ambiguous, but no matter: your newer wording is fine. Thanks. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fab, we got there in the end! A.D.Hope (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Links to dab pages
I just noticed that you linked to the dab page St Oswald from Warton, Lancaster (and after a bit of research I disambiguated it). Just in case you haven't come across it, can I introduce the brilliant gadget which can save one from linking to dab pages? Herewith my boiler-plate comment:
 * There is an easy way to avoid linking to disambiguation pages: if you go to "Preferences", "Gadgets", and look under "Appearance" you'll see "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" towards the bottom of the section. Select that tickbox, and whenever you Preview a page you'll be able to see whether you've accidentally linked to a disambiguation page.

I find it very useful. Pam D  22:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah, on consideration, perhaps it was a deliberate link to the dab page because you didn't know which of them was the dedicatee? Pam  D  22:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure the dedication is to Oswald of Northumbria, so I'd leave the link as-is. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks Pam! I didn't actually notice, in fact I assumed there was only one Saint Oswald A.D.Hope (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Church of England
Thanks for your correct and balanced edits to this article. I have noticed that this and many other Anglican-related articles have, very unfortunately, been subjected to considerable POV editing by, apparently, a few biased Evangelical Anglican and Roman Catholic editors in recent times. Anglicanus (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I know that the exact nature of Anglicanism is a somewhat thorny issue, but I think that the current wording is a sensible enough via media, as it were. I'm sure the other editors involved aren't acting in bad faith, but it's natural for there to be a bit of disagreement over defining something as broad as the C of E. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did at Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you think that the page should be deleted, please read How to delete a page. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. No discussion? Even though the content has been subject to lengthy discussion? Why? Kingsif (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I haven't replaced a page with blank content, to my knowledge. If I have you can be sure it was a mistake, and apologies if so. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Invitation!
 WikiProject Eurovision invitation for A.D.Hope!

Hello, I've noticed that you contributed to an article within our project's scope, and would like to formally invite you to join our team of editors at WikiProject Eurovision, a WikiProject dedicated to the Eurovision family of events. If you would like to join, then please add your name to this list and add the project talk page to your watchlist. You may also wish to receive our Project's newsletter; if so then please add your name to the mailing list.


 * ABU Asia-Pacific Song Contest
 * ABU International Dance Festival
 * ABU Radio Song Festival
 * ABU TV Song Festival
 * Bala Turkvision Song Contest
 * Bundesvision Song Contest
 * Cân i Gymru
 * Caribbean Song Festival
 * Eurovision Choir of the Year
 * Eurovision Dance Contest
 * Eurovision Song Contest
 * Eurovision Young Dancers
 * Eurovision Young Musicians
 * Intervision Song Contest
 * Junior Eurovision Song Contest
 * OGAE
 * OGAE Second Chance Contest
 * OGAE Video Contest
 * Pan Celtic Festival
 * Sopot International Song Festival
 * Turkvision Song Contest

Thanks and have a nice day! Grk1011 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

County flags
Hello and good day: I need to just spit out something that has been bothering me a long time admittedly. I'll keep it very simple to not encourage my procrastination even more months: I think it was completely wrong of you to just obliterate the flags from the ceremonial county articles for the UK (e.g. Cheshire). Without exaggerating too much, it feels like straight-up encouraging illiteracy and depriving people of info. It is already well-known that most readers look at the infobox first (and barely more than that and the lede); I just don't understand why we can't just restore them with notes/captions that these aren't technically official (though still carry common currency in symbolism, generally speaking). The fact I have to manually KNOW OF and search Flag of Cheshire to even see the blue banner, and this applying for every other county too? I'm earnestly curious, did you consider just how lazy and desperate the average Wikipedia reader is? What was the point of all this? Anybody likely to misinterpret even ante status quo was likely to seek out a shoddy site from Google Images regardless, without even our Wikipedia veneer of secure citaiton. Please, don't think I'm being accusatory at all, I'm just baffled I guess. Thank you for reading and I really hope you to try to at least understand my POV. A picture really does say a thousand words, and beauty is important. 🖼️-- ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 03:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. The flags have been removed from most of the English ceremonial county infoboxes, but they are still present in those articles; Cheshire's can be found in the Cheshire subsection. It also has its own article, as you know, so I don't feel that readers are being deprived of information about the flags. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SIR
MOS:SIR  Dank Jae  12:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * What have you posted this here for, Jae? A.D.Hope (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @A.D.Hope your constant re-adding of Sir at 2024 United Kingdom general election.  Dank Jae  12:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That isn't a biographical article, so MOS:Sir doesn't directly apply. Applying the spirit of it would mean using 'Sir' at the first mention and then dropping it, which is the approach I adopted. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Still there is no requirement to add Sir to every single article on the subject. Many of Kier's sub-articles omit it. It is just unnecessary and MOS:SIR only calls for their use once on their actual article.  Dank Jae  13:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't added 'Sir' to every article on the subject, in fact I'm largely uninvolved in political articles; I only edited the lead of the 2024 election article because it was long and excessively detailed.
 * I appreciate that you find the use of 'sir' unecessary, but even if we apply MOS:SIR to the article despite it not being biographical I have followed the spirit of the guideline. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @A.D.Hope, still I only really see Sir on the actual article. I find it comparable to "Professor" adding Professor in front whenever a subject is mentioned (whether first or not) seems promotional IMO but more over-the-top. Nonetheless, Sir I think was absent from the election article's lead until it was added recently.
 * Plus if the lead or text does include many subjects with knighthoods, we may need to add 20 "Sir"s, it just is not needed imo.  Dank Jae  13:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)