User talk:JMPhillips92/Archive 1

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:John Hampden New Freedom Party/meta/color


A tag has been placed on Template:John Hampden New Freedom Party/meta/color, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TJH2018  talk  16:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Hello. An edit that you recently made to All those one line "templates" seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 23:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

UK historical election sources
Hi again, There is another on-line source for constituency results which can be found here; http://tools.assembla.com/svn/grodt/uk/thc/files/marked_up/ This is the text used to compile 'The Times House of Commons' publications. This source provides details of many candidates forenames, something that Political Resources do not provide. Graemp (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Graemp. I've been using this source to update some other articles and noticed that you've then added further details afterwards. Is this an offline source you're using? I'm interested so I can help as much as possible. --JMPhillips92 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My further details have mainly come from additional research using the following;


 * clicking on 'What links here' on the left hand column under Tools.
 * searching the names elsewhere on wikipedia
 * checking Who's Who on-line via UK library card access
 * I also make the odd mistake like with Sims, so thanks for correcting that. Graemp (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Conservative & National Liberal
Hi, I notice that you have done some editing around adding to the party description of candidates. I think this is an improvement. These descriptions should only apply for candidates between 1948 and 1965. (For the 1966 elections all candidates were required to use the description "Conservative"). There were a whole variety of combinations of these descriptions including "Liberal and Conservative". Often sources would have a particular house style and record all these different combinations in the same way, regardless of what was actually used locally. I think those candidates who were essentially Conservatives should be recorded as 'Conservative and National Liberal' (dark blue) and those who were National Liberals as 'National Liberal and Conservative' (light blue). Usually the biog provided by The Times sources will indicate which should apply. If you agree, I will make changes to your edits if I notice you have used a less accurate description. Graemp (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me - glad to work with you to make all these pages as correct as accurate as possbile! --JMPhillips92 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Candidate forenames
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom in relation to edits you and other have made. I thought I would ping you, should you wish to contribute. Graemp (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harry Legge-Bourke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ernest Fernyhough, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harold Davies. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Breaking links and ISBN templates on Frank Field
Hi, Your recent change to the article on Frank Field removed quite a few strings of numbers, which broke archive links and ISBN numbers. I'm assuming this was an accident and I've restored the lost data (keeping your intended changes on his re-election intact), but it's probably a good idea for you to figure out what went wrong, so that you can prevent something like it happening in the future. Rchard2scout (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

1918 Party description
Hi, I have noticed you changing the 1918 election results in the constituency articles, adding the prefix 'Coalition' and removing the note 'endorsed by the coalition government'. This is changing edits that I had previously made. Assigning correct party labels for 1918 is very complex, given that no party labels appeared on ballot papers back then. This is further complicated by the issuing of government endorsements to some candidates. Some candidates who did not receive endorsement still described themselves as Coalition supporters. It was not always clear which candidates were claiming to support the Coalition. In 1918 there were no political parties called 'Coalition Liberal' or Coalition Unionist/Conservative'. The only thing we know for sure is where a candidate was an official Liberal, Labour and Unionist (Conservative) because we know about their adoption by the local parties and endorsement by party HQs. This is why I went through the 1918 results making sure candidates were described by just the party label and adding where endorsement was given. I havn't followed your edits enough to understand the basis of your changes. Can you give me some idea please? Graemp (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have recently acquired the Craig book for election results from 1918-1948 which include designations for coalition endorsed candidates, so have been amending based on this, after seeing some seats where Coaltion endorsed Liberal candidates, for example, opposed Liberal candidates. I also thought it was important in the context of the National Liberals of 1922. Craig also notes where candidates supported by the coalition but did not receive the coupon. Let me know if you think this is wrong. JMPhillips92 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is so much a matter of what is right or wrong. I think it is a matter of what is clearer and more accurate. The Craig book is a very reliable book. As a reference publication in hardback, Craig was constrained to present information in as concise a way as possible. He also adopted a particular style of presentation when it came to party labels. This style sought a particular type of uniformity that did not always properly reflect accurate descriptions. How he treats 1918 is a good example of this. Another example of this is how he treats 'joint candidates' of the Conservative and National Liberal parties in his 1950-73 volume. Editors like you and I put in work on wikipedia to improve on his simplistic labeling to give a more accurate description. There are a few cases where Liberals opposed each other in 1918. I would call the official Liberal candidate 'Liberal' and any other Liberal candidate 'Coalition Liberal' if they supported the coalition and 'Independent Liberal' if they didn't. I would then have noted any candidate who received the coalition government endorsement additionally. I have recently come across a neater way of presenting this information than the way I did. See Whitehaven (UK Parliament constituency). The 'Coalition Liberal' description is ideal for many by-election candidates for 1919-22. As for the 1918 General Election and the by-elections 1914-1918 I think the use of 'Coalition Liberal' lacks enough clarity and may be misleading. Graemp (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely understand all that, and will revert the edits and make further edits bearing all this in mind in future--JMPhillips92 (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Conservative or Unionist
Hi again. I've noticed that you have started doing a few edits 'Cons known as Unis from 1890s to 1920s' changing Conservative to Unionist for the 1910 elections. Party descriptions around this time are not always clear. What we do know is that up until 1912 the Conservative Party was officially called the Conservative Party and that in 1912 they formally merged with the Liberal Unionist Party. From 1912 the official party name for the new merged party was the Unionist Party. In carrying out my edits, trying to follow some existing pattern for England & Wales, I have used Unionist from 1912-1929 and Conservative for before and after. Graemp (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC) But if this is incorrect, I will leave edits as Conservative from now on. --JMPhillips92 (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again! It does appear confusing. I was using information from this source which says: "As a result, from the 1890s to the 1920s, 'Unionist' displaced Conservative as the general term for the Party and its supporters - in Scotland until the 1960s."

Nomination for deletion of Template:Election box gain with party link with swing
Template:Election box gain with party link with swing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Election box hold with party link with swing
Template:Election box hold with party link with swing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Edward William Barnett) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Edward William Barnett, JMPhillips92!

Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Happy Holidays text.png Hello JMPhillips92: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

To reply, leave a comment on Abishe's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Abishe (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Maurice Brooks (MP)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Maurice Brooks (MP), JMPhillips92!

Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Happy Holidays text.png Hello JMPhillips92: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

To reply, leave a comment on Abishe's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Abishe (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi JMPhillips92, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AJMPhillips92 added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Historic MPs
I've been meaning to get in touch for a while but your post about Samuel Carter (Coventry MP) reminded me - thanks for all the new MPs you've been creating recently.

I've been working on a parallel project on Wikidata to build a structured index of MPs - this is one of those odd things that doesn't really exist anywhere public in a clean and coherent form. The Historic Hansard database is really messy, as you've seen, plus it misses out a small fraction of members for no apparent reason.

I've got a report up at User:Andrew Gray/MPs which identifies all the ones who don't seem to have WP articles yet, and also notes those with ODNB or History of Parliament articles. It might be some help to you so thought I'd flag it up... Andrew Gray (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! To give some idea of my method, I'm also working back through elections filling in gaps (currently in the 1860s) and creating MP pages that come up missing when they appear. But when I'm done with those, I will also seek to create ones I've missed! Some of the History of Parliament pages require log-ins, but I can't find out how to create an account - do you know how, or if they're locked down because they're not complete? --JMPhillips92 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmm, interesting. I've tweaked the page to now display clickable URLs and all those seem to work fine. The downside is that it's for some reason only displaying a single link for anyone who has two History of Parliament or Hansard entries - if you check the Wikidata page you'll see if they have others (plus various other sources that may be useful). Andrew Gray (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Henry Galgacus Redhead Yorke
Thanks for starting Henry Galgacus Redhead Yorke, I got a ping as it linked to a bio of one of his contemporaneous York MPs. I found a couple of good sources about his life to give some more colour to the bio, but I couldn't find much about his political career. Could this be a DYK candidate? Fences &amp;  Windows  23:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)