User talk:Johannes Schade/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Johannes Schade, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Johannes Schade! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 06:58, Saturday, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hi Johannes, welcome to Wikipedia! I saw your question at the teahouse and looked over your edits to Helen's Tower. You're doing great work, and I'm glad to have you aboard. You're very welcome to ask me questions on my talk page, or of course ask at the teahouse, where far more experienced editors than me are available. I hope you're enjoying things here. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 22:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * . I do not really know how to reply. I saw that on your talk page it says "Please reply on the same talk page as the original message", so I think this is here. Thank you so much for your intervention. What you say makes of course a lot of sense. Perhaps in most cases the reference is not the right place for the quotation. However I feel a need for recording somewhere excerpts from sources that are, once were, or might become important for the article, especially when the sources are difficult to access, e.g. when they are from a book I got through the interlibrary lending service from a library where I can hardly go in person, or when I search books in Google and might not be able to repeat the search because I exceeded the limit. Besides, how should a reviewer of an article be able to check the correctness of citations from sources that are difficult to access? On the talk page of City of London Swords and some other articles you added a section “Sources to explore”. That comes close to what I think might be needed. Perhaps Wikipedia has a place for things like that? - Besides, I like your user page a lot! Johannes Schade (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's odd. You're very welcome to reply on my talk page or anywhere else. I like the approach of making sources as accessible as possible, and adding excerpts can sometimes be helpful. I do tend to write lists of sources on talk pages, in case they're useful for other editors (or myself) who try to expand the article later. There's no formal way of doing that that I know of, I just do it ad hoc. Sorry my advice has been so vague so far - a lot of Wikipedia editing is quite informal, so it really is up to you to choose a style you feel comfortable with. Let me know if I can ever help. All the best, &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 22:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have taken inspiration from your lead and made sections called Quotations and Sources on the Helen's Tower talk page. I will try this format for a while. I also looked with interest at your To-Do lists. I felt I needed something like this for pages I work on but rather not in public so that I can jot down short notes that need not make sense for the general public. The main reason is that I feel that I need to regroup small minor edits. My mean edit size is 315.3 bytes, whereas yours is 406.6. So I started a Microsoft Word file on my laptop. I might also use it to prepare texts for Wikipedia. I am used to Word and miss the spell checker a lot when editing directly on Wikipedia. How do you do these things? Thanks for chatting. Johannes Schade (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Siege of Derry
Hi. Thanks again for all the work you've done on the article. I'm not a particular expert on rating articles. If you ask on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history page, I'm sure someone better qualified will take a look at it. Regards, Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

Saltire Stewart Arms
Alexander Stewart (1746–1831), Castlereagh and the 4th marquess all have saltires on their arms. Where do they come from?

Earl of Abercorn
Johannes,

Not to worry. Working on many of these obscure figures, where very little comprehensive data is available, does tempt one to speculation, and I'm sure I've committed the same sort of error somewhere in my collection of articles. Baronetcies, as you now know, are rather difficult to classify--similar to a knighthood, but hereditary, and yet not constituting "nobility" in the (somewhat strict) UK sense. Looking at Cokayne's Complete Baronetage, it looks as though the baronetcy was created somewhat irregularly; the exact date of creation is not known, although George seems to have been commonly regarded to be a baronet. Cokayne seems to suggest, in a footnote, that James may have failed to take up the baronetcy because it was never properly created and patented; or perhaps George was only knighted, and the baronetcy was a later invention entirely. I appreciate all the work you've been doing on the Hamiltons and hope you will continue.

Curious that you should be born in Kaufbeuren. We have a vague family tradition of some sort of connection with St. Crescentia, although that may be wishful thinking; our branch of the family seems to come from Schwendi bei Biberach. Choess (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 references
First, congratulations on the detailed referencing and research you've done on some recent articles, many related to the conflicts in Ireland from what I see. I noticed them because of some changes you made to the style of referencing the Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition.

There's a project, started long ago, for absorbing and then footnoting EB1911 articles into Wikipedia: the text is copyright-free, of high quality, and covers some obscure topics. Over 22,000 articles enter into the project. We have developed a house style, documented at WikiProject_Encyclopaedia_Britannica, for referencing the source. In brief, it prefers links to Wikisource, it uses specialized templates that wrap citation and that drop articles into appropriate categories, and it only requires citations down to the page level for multi-page entries. We universally use 1911, not 1910, as the date of the entire work. I recommend a quick scan of that page (the first half, at any rate). A small number of us are slowly working through, fixing the existing now-deprecated tags. The DNB has a similar approach and its own custom templates; between just those two sources, the numbers are staggering.

I see you have gone above and beyond these requirements by referencing down to the line level with quoted extracts and a link to the archived images. Quite a scholarly effort, but not sustainable for those many thousands of articles! I reverted a few to conform to the Wikiproject conventions (using my alternate account), but on second thought it's probably a shame to undo your detailed effort. So I'll go back and partly reverse my changes. I'll add the category Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference by hand.

Another note: for date ranges the Wikipedia Manual of Style has detailed specifications at MOS:DATERANGE. In brief, an unspaced n-dash for simple years ranges, a spaced n-dash for most other constructions (opinions differ on whether the spacing requirement applies to "c. 1500–1550"). The snd template provides the spaced dash, and avoids putting a line break before the dash. Regards, David Brooks (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying on my talk page. If I may summarize, you say (a) Wikipedia's transparent sourcing policy is what drives you to identifying the source line number, and adding a text extract, in the footnote code (b) you prefer to link to online sources other than Wikisource, although you listed some (Hathi, Gutenberg) that are also transcriptions rather than scans. To the first: it's commendable, but not scalable. I prefer breadth to depth: it's quicker to acknowledge using a template when text is either a copy of, or supported by, a PD authority, so that I can move on to the next article and cover more ground (16,000 to go!). To the second, the preference for Wikisource goes back some years, and there are others better acquainted than I with the reasoning,


 * Calling can you address the second point? For context, a recent example of the citation style that Johannes has adopted is here: James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn.


 * It's best to keep conversations like this together. When I make a note on someone's talk page I usually keep it on my watchlist for a couple of weeks, so you can reply here. David Brooks (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear David. I am of course not trying to impose a particular way of citing on anybody. Quite obviously citing by line and giving a quote is time-consuming, takes a lot of space in the "Notes and references" section, and is not always appropriate. I myself do not always cite in this manner. Quite recently, an experienced Wikipedian inserted "citation needed" marks in the lead section of the article Antoine Hamilton. I felt that broader referencing was needed. I used the harv template to cite dictionary entries without page numbers and removed the cn's, which seems to have been accepted by the Wikipedian in question. Sometimes I am pushed into giving line numbers by my use of the sfn template, which throws a Cite error when I give different quotes (ps=) for the same page number (p=). Kind regards Johannes Schade (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Got it. I understand, and I think we're in agreement. Thanks. David Brooks (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Thanks a lot! It was nice to talk to you. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Elizabeth, Countess de Gramont
Thank you for your recent talk page message. I have reviewed the citations, these seem good so have removed the fact tags. Actually, you could probably have removed the tags when you applied the citation, as this seems common and acceptable practice throughout Wikipedia, especially with the quality and reliability of the sources involved. As for the comma in the date, after review of the source, that should not have been added so it has been removed. That could have been due to an accidental keystroke. The year in square brackets is useful for context, so that approach seems reasonable. Various Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:V and WP:CITE can be reviewed for more assistance. Hope this helps. Dl2000 (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Butler of Garryricken

 * "future-in-the-past": No. It should be the past tense. He died and will not be doing anything in the future (on this earth at least).
 * "the name of the article": I don't see anything wrong with the name. It creates a geographic link between his ancestors and descendants. But if sources prefer Kilcash Castle, I'm happy to change the name accordingly.
 * "how to call the person who is the subject of the article": This has more to do with aesthetics than manual-of-style. Once many males are included in a sentence, it becomes unclear as to which male is the subject (or object) of the pronoun. For that reason, it is sometimes preferable to inject the person's surname in the interests of clarity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

James Hamilton (English army soldier)
Hello, Thank you for your message. The reason for the stub assessment is that it was based on assuming the existing rating in another project was correct. The true rating should obviously be much higher but as a non-member of WP Military History I usually leave that project's article's unrated. I see you have reinstated the stub rating but I think it would be all right to leave it unrated for all projects until someone from WP Military History gets to it.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Johnsoniensis. Thank for your quick reply and the good advice that I will follow. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

MacMurrough-Kavanagh
Your question about The MacMurrough might be answered by looking at Chief of the Name. While it mainly relates to Scotland, it has a strong overlap with Ireland. Basically, the person holding the Chiefship (Chieftain) of a clan was said to embody the clan and in a sense, to be the clan. So he held The Name. In Irish nobility, the Chieftain did not automatically pass his title to his eldest son. See Tánaiste. Any member of the clan might claim the title if he was well related. Only after the introduction of surrender and regrant by King Henry VIII did this policy change. The chiefship followed English custom and became inheritable in the male line of the chief. From then onwards, the chieftain, now with an English title, was also said to be "The McCarthy" or "The McMurrough-Kavanagh" etc. By the way, I am not an old man and do not live in a retirement home. My name has another source. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Laurel Lodged. Thanks for pointing me to the article "Chief of the name". It explains the matter well. I will think about how to handle this in our article John Butler, 17th Earl of Ormonde, or perhaps you would be better qualified to do this. However, I still do not understand why you want it in bold? None of the uses in MOS:Bold seem to apply. With many thanks. Please excuse my wrong guess. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
An edit you made to Antoine Hamilton on November 27 - DIFF has created multiple cite errors which were not present in the article on November 25 - DIFF2. If you could please take a look and see what happen with your edit and then fix it please. I can't seem to figure out what you did, and therefore can't fix it myself. Cite error was discovered while I working on the backlog in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting, where the article was listed. Thank you. Isaidnoway (talk)  07:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Isaidnoway. I think you talk about the four cite errors in the "Notes and references" section under the list of explanatory footnotes (efn template). They appeared when I moved the explanatory footnotes out of the text and made them list-defined in the "Notelist" template in the "refs" parameter. I think it is a bug affecting the Notelist template concerning list-defined explanatory footnotes that contain citations. It also appears in a number of other articles where I used explanatory footnotes in this way. I have tried all kinds of things to get rid of it. Of course I could just move these explanatory footnotes back in the text. Some people say it has to do with known Wikipedia bug T22707, which is mostly discussed in the context of list-defined references, but it is list-defined explanatory footnotes in my case. I am glad somebody is interested in this. Johannes Schade (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed the cite errors by just putting it back like the way it was. Sometimes it's just easier to do it the old way, instead of trying to use list-defined references that create a lot of these problems. Also try using the sfn template for book citations, they also work inside the efn template. Thanks for looking into it though. Merry Christmas. Isaidnoway (talk)  11:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Isaidnoway. Thanks for fixing Antoine Hamilton. I agree with what you say: an sfn inside an efn is no problem as long as the efn is not list-defined. In fact only the last efn in a list longer than one causes problems. Merry Christmas to you as well! Johannes Schade (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020
You have another article you've edited — Richard Hamilton (officer), listed in CAT:REF, needs attention → see here. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk)  19:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles MacCarty, Viscount Muskerry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franco-Spanish War ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Charles_MacCarty%2C_Viscount_Muskerry check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Charles_MacCarty%2C_Viscount_Muskerry?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Charles Dillon, 14th Viscount Dillon ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Charles_Dillon%2C_14th_Viscount_Dillon check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Charles_Dillon%2C_14th_Viscount_Dillon?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Charles Strickland
 * Henry Dillon, 11th Viscount Dillon ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Henry_Dillon%2C_11th_Viscount_Dillon check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Henry_Dillon%2C_11th_Viscount_Dillon?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Peer

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: Robert Stewart, 1st Marquess of Londonderry
Hello there, thanks for your message. As far as I'm aware, there's no established rule for lists of children, other than styles/honorifics (such as HRH, HH, "Honourable", etc) should be omitted (MOS:HONORIFIC), and boldface should only be used to refer to the topic of the article (MOS:BOLD). It's possible there are other rules that I'm not aware of. I've tried to find further clarification and those are really the most concrete ones I could find. Perhaps someone else on the royalty/nobility task force at WikiProject Biography would know.

However, as far as last names go, I prefer to add them in for each child because a child does not necessarily have the same last name as the father (case in point: the 1st Marquess of Londonderry's second son, Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry, who took the surname of his wife). Especially among the nobility, there are a lot of cases of name changes, mother's surnames joining with the father's to become double-barrelled names (sometimes even triple-barrelled)--the main patriline of this particular family, in fact, eventually became "Vane-Tempest-Stewart". Some peerages in Scotland have a matrilineal succession and use the mother's name for the eldest child. And then you have illegitimate children. Also, as you get closer to the 20th and 21st centuries, it becomes more and more common for the mother's name to play a role. It isn't something you should stress over, and you're certainly not the only person to do it that way. I just find it useful to add them.

As far as the children being Lords and Ladies: all legitimate children of British dukes and marquesses are entitled to the courtesy title "Lord" or "Lady" (for details on these conventions, I refer you to the articles Forms of address in the United Kingdom and Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom). The style for an heir apparent is slightly different, as the heir is entitled to the use of his father's most senior subsidiary title as a courtesy title. The 1st Marquess of Londonderry's eldest son was known as "Viscount Castlereagh" because he was the heir apparent, and "Viscount Castlereagh" was one of his father's subsidiary titles. Despite the fact that he did eventually succeed to the marquessate, he died only a year later--and since he spent most of his life as "Viscount Castlereagh", that is how he is most remembered (as opposed to "the 2nd Marquess of Londonderry").

These title and style rules get a little more smudgy, however, when you go further back than around the 1700s, as there originally was no fixed system in place for honorifics and such. Up until around the time of Henry VIII, kings used to be referred to as "Your Grace", and there was originally no English female equivalent for "prince", so princesses and other noble women were all just referred to as "The Lady ---". I know the British title system can be very confusing--I refer back to those two links I gave you a lot.

Also, on another note: generally lists aren't made for siblings. I don't think it's a rule or anything, and I've certainly seen a couple of articles that do it that way, but usually those are reserved for children. If a reader or even an editor is only giving the article a cursory glance, it can be confusing if there are lists for both children and siblings--it looks like sets of children from two different marriages. And you generally want to defer to prose if you can, anyway. The siblings can be mentioned in the prose, but it tends to look more professional (especially if the article is short or is a stub) if the article isn't filled with mainly lists.

Sorry if I started to ramble. Please feel free to message if you need anything, and I'll try to help! ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Iamthecheese44. You are not rambling. I appreciate what you say. I was of course wrong about the use of Lord and Lady to address the children of marquesses and dukes. I just did not know. I am still thinking about what you say. Johannes Schade (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I find it not easy to decide on these issues. I think that Wikipedia differs from printed encyclopedias among others by not being limited in space and by its wikilinks. Two huge advantages. Wikipedias encyclopedic style is therefore not a simple imitation of Encyclopaedia Britannica or ODNB. I think it is fine with Wikipedia biographies to include lists (siblings and children), tables (Infobox, I usually add a Timeline table), and more illustrations than printed encyclopedias usually have (I tend to add a Family tree). To change lists of siblings into prose, I feel, would be retrograde. Perhaps, one could find a way to replace the list of siblings with a link to the list of children in the father's or mother's article if it exists. However, such section-level links might be vulnerable. I have decided to follow your lead and to drop the "who" out of the lists of siblings and children. You cite MOS:HONORIFIC. Is the Lord or Lady in the children's list not honorific? When you edited the list of children you did use punctuation as I did. By mistake or intentionally? Don't you agree that lists should be treated as "vertical sentences" and fully punctuated? So much for today. Thank you so much for talking to me! I am on a huge learning curve Johannes Schade (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry Dillon, 11th Viscount Dillon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Pancras ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Henry_Dillon%2C_11th_Viscount_Dillon check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Henry_Dillon%2C_11th_Viscount_Dillon?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Callaghan MacCarty, 3rd Earl of Clancarty
Hello! Your submission of Callaghan MacCarty, 3rd Earl of Clancarty at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SpinningSpark 13:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week
Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius  19:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Callaghan MacCarty, 3rd Earl of Clancarty
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

AutoEd
Hi there - the honest answer is that I do not know why AutoEd makes those changes, so if you want to continue to edit in a slightly different way please feel free to do so. GiantSnowman 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucas Dillon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trim ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Lucas_Dillon check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Lucas_Dillon?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Preston, 1st Earl of Desmond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elizabeth Butler ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Richard_Preston%2C_1st_Earl_of_Desmond check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Richard_Preston%2C_1st_Earl_of_Desmond?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Good Afternoon, Johannes
Good Afternoon, Johannes! Sorry for my late response, but it was late last night when we traded messages. And this morning I had a Zoom meeting with family to celebrate Memorial Day here in the U.S.

So nice to hear from you! And Yes! I would be happy to correspond with you in the future regarding Wikipedia. As you know I am also pretty new and still on the learning curve. I have searched for guides to Wikipedia but been unsuccessful. And their webpages are often very difficult to understand. So it would be very nice to discuss Wikipedia issues with a friend.

By the way, my name is Virgil. I live in the suburbs of Chicago, Illinois. All the best to you! VFF0347 (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Virgil. In Chicago it is late morning, here in Bangor, near Belfast, Northern Ireland, late afternoon, now already evening. How to start? Guides? There is The Manual of Style (MOS), a jungle and difficult, but of course very important. There are some guides, but they are difficult to find. There is somewhere a how-to text for biographies, but I cannot find it anymore. There are many, many different ways of contributing to Wikipedia. I like to contribute content on my chosen topic: Irish biographies of the 17th and 18th century. Others contribute in completely different ways, e.g. protecting Wikipedia against vandalism. You need to find your way, focus on some activity some topic. The more I write the better I understand the historical background, the more I find useful sources. I feel you want to write but need to find your topic. Your efforts are extremely widespread. East Asian History, Napoleon etc. It is essential to build up the knowledge of relevant sources. Especially, sources that are available on line and can the searched and quoted again and again. Internet Archive is my great helper in this regard. With friendly greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Virgil. I thought I would hear from you but I did not. Perhaps it is simply because I forgot to ping you. I am busy adding infoboxes to the articles on my watchlist. I use "infobox noble" (e.g. Richard Preston, 1st Earl of Desmond) and "infobox officeholder" (e.g. Arthur Richard Dillon). I came to do this because I found that raters look for it and I would like to see the articles in my watchlist to advance in rating. Friendly greetings, Johannes Johannes Schade (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Johannes! Great to hear from you! I am doing just fine. I am writing a brand new article so I have been researching the subject on the Internet (Internet sites, Google Books, JSTOR, Internet Archive, etc.) and drafting the article in my sandbox. But all is going well. So far so good. My greatest issue right now is that our libraries are still closed. My local library doesn't always have the books I want but they can borrow books from most all of the colleges and universities in the U.S. All my best to you, Virgil VFF0347 (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Virgil! The libraries are closed here as well. The library here at Bangor is very small. I usually have to ask to get a book from other libraries in Northern Ireland or go to Belfast myself, or even to Dublin. I then take notes but usually find out that my notes are insufficient. I mostly use sources from Internet Archive. Do you have access to JSTOR? I though one needed to be associated with a research institution, which I am not.

I found some essays about article writing:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography#WikiProject_Biography_11_easy_steps_to_producing_at_least_a_B_article
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/October_2019/Op-ed
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Academy/Writing_a_featured_article
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Essays/Primer_for_creating_women%27s_biographies

Perhaps, we should send each other emails in future instead of going through Wikipedia. My email is "jschade481@gmail.com". Friendly greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Hamilton, 1st Marquess of Hamilton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marquess of Hamilton ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/John_Hamilton%2C_1st_Marquess_of_Hamilton check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/John_Hamilton%2C_1st_Marquess_of_Hamilton?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Entzheim
Hi, I got your note. The Google Maps citation is okay. I did not see a specific reference that stated that the airport was on top of the battlefield. What I would have written would be, "Entzheim is now the location of Strasbourg Airport" and cite it with any website that gives Entzheim as the airport's location. But I have had to cite Google Maps a few times. There are currently two other "citation needed" tags in the last section. At least one (Turenne's most brilliant campaign) could be fixed by citing Spencer C. Tucker's "A Global Chronology of Conflict" on page 651. (It's online.) We are all learning how to write for Wikipedia by doing it and by seeing the work of other editors. I've been writing military history and other articles since at least 2011 and I'm still learning new things (tables, pictures, infoboxes, etc.). As far as I'm aware, B class articles need to be fully cited. The exception is the introduction/infobox. But if the introduction/infobox includes information not found in the article, it also needs a citation. Djmaschek (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Djmaschek. Thanks for your kind help, explanation,and encouragement. I looked at the source you indicated. Very useful for Entzheim and probably for a couple of others. Thank you so much! Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

British Brigade
Another article worth looking at; CHARLES II's REGIMENTS IN FRANCE, 1672-1678: PART III C. T. Atkinson Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research Vol. 24, No. 100 (Winter, 1946), pp. 161-172 (12 pages)

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gustavus Hamilton, 1st Viscount Boyne, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Queen Anne and Shannon River ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Gustavus_Hamilton%2C_1st_Viscount_Boyne check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Gustavus_Hamilton%2C_1st_Viscount_Boyne?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Wentworth Dillon, 4th Earl of Roscommon
Hello Johannes,

Happy to add a very minor correction to an extremely useful chart - please keep up the good work!

All the best, MagicManky (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arthur Dillon, Count Dillon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berwick.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Thomas Butler, 10th Earl of Ormond alt:attribute to portrait
Hello Johannes,

You are correct about the alt attribute of the portrait of the 10th Earl of Ormond. I have reverted my deletion with some editing. My apologies. GMan552 (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Alexander MacDonnell, 3rd Earl of Antrim
 * added a link pointing to Antrim
 * Randal MacDonnell, 1st Marquess of Antrim (1645 creation)
 * added a link pointing to Antrim

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sligo Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pale.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elizabeth Butler, Duchess of Ormond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elizabeth Butler.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry
Hello Johannes, thanks for your comment, I'm relatively new to this myself, I've replied in the right place. You were completely correct to use the style "The Most Honourable" for the address of a marquess. With regards to when to use The Marquess of Londonderry and Lord Londonderry, the style "The Marquess of Londonderry" would be in formal situations, as per the infobox, whereas Lord Londonderry would be used in an informal manner e.g. letter writing. This rule applies to Earls and Viscounts too. Hereditary Barons however are always styled Lord (to distinguish them from the historical feudal barons); it's just a strange idiosyncrasy of the British peerage. I've linked an article previously in the text about British forms of address that'll explain this more clearly than I can and I've also attached links to the relevant bits of the manual of style about how to use them in text (I hope that isn't too presumptuous). These styles of address sections used to be on lots of nobility and royalty biographies but seem to have been gradually removed over the last few months and years, although being relatively new myself I'm not entirely sure why this has occurred. With regard to the use of "and," within the list, the Manual of Style tends to recommend writing the text as if bullet pointed rather than as you would write a list in prose. I hope these comments have been useful; if you are ever in doubt with where to use Baron or Lord, looking at another article about a baron (such as Baron Pethick-Lawrence) may help to act as a guide.

Thanks again and I hope you continue to enjoying contributing to the Wikipedia's collaborative encyclopaedia. Regards, CrumbleCrumble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Honorifics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Subsequent_use

CrumbleCrumble (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear CrumbleCrumble. Thank you very much for your effort to explain these not-so-simple matters. It is very much appreciated. I am still quite confused with MOS:HON, MOS:SIR and other MOSs that I have read. I tried to find out what usage is and looked at my watchlist, which contains about 100 aristocratic biographies. I find that only 2, Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry and Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, have Styles sections. Two others have styles in the lead, Frederick Hamilton (Donegal politician), and Gustavus Hamilton (politician). Five have styles in the infobox: George Hamilton, 3rd Earl of Abercorn, George Lee, 3rd Earl of Lichfield, Gustavus Hamilton, 2nd Viscount Boyne, Gustavus Hamilton, 2nd Viscount Boyne, and Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh. I think styles should not appear in the lead unless they appear in the body, so I should probably remove them from the two cited articles. I feel that they are also not needed in infoboxes, but MOS:SIR says that "Sir". "Dame" "Lord" are included in the lead and the infobox. What do you think? You seem to say that Styles sections have fallen out of fashion. So I will just leave them as they are — Another related question is how the subject of such a biography should be called through his life: by first name ("John") while a child, surname or complete name while an adult ("Smith", "John Smith"), "Sir John" having been knighted, still "Sir John" being a baronet (however MOS:SIR says avoid "Sir" and first name), "Lord Oldtown" being Baron of Oldtown, "Lord Newtown" being Viscount Newtown, and so forth. At least this is how I thought it should be. I like adding "as he was now" each time a new name was used to alert the user to the change of name. — What you say about lists not being treated as vertical sentences in Wikipedia is worrying for me as I have added many lists of siblings and children, all treated as vertical sentences with semicolons, "and", and final period, except when they are in tables. I did not find clear instructions in MOS:LIST. Do you? With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Butler, 10th Earl of Ormond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony St Leger.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scottish pound.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles MacCarty, Viscount Muskerry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of the Dunes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Richard Butler of Kilcash
Is there any evidence of his religion? His descendants were notable Catholics. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Laurel Lodge. Richard of Kilcash definitively was a Catholic. He fought for the Confederates. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Laurel Lodge. I just discovered that there is another Richard Butler appearing in the same context: Captain Richard Butler, third son of Richard Butler, 3rd Viscount Mountgarret, the Confederate President (see Lodge IV p 67). I might have confused them. I am therefore not sure any more that Richard of Kilcash fought for the Confederates. That was perhaps his homonym. However, with regard to religion all these Butlers were Catholics except Black Tom, his daughter, and the Dukes. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I don't think that Kilcash was the Confederate leader. That was Mountgarret. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty
The article Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Example -- Example (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaelic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sotakeit -- Sotakeit (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Charles Dillon, 14th Viscount Dillon
Hello:

I see Dawnseeker2000 has not responded to either of us. I checked and he's continuing to edit using scripts today. I've looked back through some of these edits and see they often do nothing constructive - change yyyy/mm/day date formats to mdy, for exampl, where there's no need to do so. From a quick look at his Talk page he appears to ignore or shrug off most queries. So, I suggest you revert the edit that removed the non-breaking spaces and carry on as before. Use them where it makes sense to you. Stay safe. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Twofingered Typist. Thank you so much for your intervention. This the second time you come out and support me. Luckily, your pessimistic view has proved wrong and Dawnseeker2000 has eventually answered, saying he will attend to the matter shortly. I am confident that this will have a happy ending and no reversion will be needed.
 * On the topics:
 * (1) Non-breaking space. I thought the use of &amp;nbsp; between number and month in dates should have been prescribed in MOS:NUM, but I could not find it there, so I wrote a note on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Non-breaking_space_between_number_and_month_in_dates). I hope some authorised MOS-editor will add what is missing in MOSS:NUM.
 * (2) Date vs. Year parameter in Cite book. The real problem is how to reconcile the use of the Year parameter by VisualEditor with the caveat in the Cite book documentation. Perhaps the caveat should be dropped and Year should be recommended.


 * I also looked at Proveit but this does not help much. It does not seem to be widely used. The category "Wikipedians who use ProveIt" has only 120 entries. I installed Proveit and tried it, encoding a simple year-only year-of-publication (e.g. 1978) in "Cite book". I chose the "Year of publication" list item, which displays the tooltip "Year of the source being referenced; use 'date' instead if month and day are also known" as you pointed out. Astonishingly, Proveit generates a "Cite book" template with the "|date=" parameter in both cases. The "Date" list item is displayed by clicking the "Show all fields" button. It offers entering day month year and a "Today" button.


 * With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daniel O'Brien, 1st Viscount Clare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles II.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

citing Google books
Thank you for your kind comments at the Calendar Act: that topic continues there.

I didn't reply there to your remark about citing google books, because I missed it. The best place to ask about this topic is User talk:Citation bot because that bot cleans up the longwinded google URL. I have installed the button and use it liberally when I edit. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Poking my nose where it doesn't belong around your talk page, I have just discovered ProveIt, which might have made hand-crafting all the citations for the Calendar Act a lot easier. But I did use CitationBot (eventually), which helped quite a bit. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Pickering citation
Regarding your note about, I had another look and can't for the life of me understand why I used the "loc=3 Easter ..." in the first place. The Computus is the first and only item on page 189, so I have simplified the citation to an ordinary.

As to the more general point of using the p=Https technique, I can see where that would be very useful. For example, the Pickering volume is HUGE and it could be argued that I have cheated a bit by using the 1765a/1765b technique that was probably designed to deal with distinct books or volumes in the same year. I have (mis?)used it for chapters, one per Act which means that they are quite short, which means that it only takes a moment to reach the designated page. If I could only cite the whole book, then the p=Https function would be essential. And they say it takes ten years to really understand how to write a Wikipedia article, well I am still learning! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

GAR of Calendar Act
Thank you for taking this on. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to note further my appreciation of your detailed analysis. You are doing a great job of shining a shining a bright light into some long-standing blind spots. The quality of the article has taken a step up. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And thank you again. There are a few items marked that I need further input on when you have the time, please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me thank you again for your forensic evaluation of the article, which I suspect took rather more of your time than you had anticipated. The process has improved it immensely and I personally have learned a lot by the process - not least on how to write a GA standard on a 'messy' topic. (Messy in the sense that it doesn't have neat well-defined boundaries and great discipline is needed to keep it focussed). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty
I am certainly willing to have a go, though I have never done one before. I see that the pro-forma is already set up, so that's the first hurdle out of the way. How do I declare that I'm taking over? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just about to start a review session now, so please do not edit GA2 talk page before 18:30 today. An edit conflict would not be entertaining. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear John Maynard Friedman. I will wait until you have finished. Thanks for telling. Edit conflicts are no fun. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have finished for today. Let loose the dogs of war! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, going for it. Best regards, Johannes Johannes Schade (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty
The article Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of John Maynard Friedman -- John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK hook
I hope it succeeds, it is a good one! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

When you deleted "Despite this family background, Donough and his siblings grew up to be Catholics. It is not known how this came about.", did you not delete your hook in the process? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear faithful, you are so right. I brought some of it back. Of course, I do not have a citation for this statement. Sometimes, one has the impression that the reader expects a bit of a speculation as an answer to an obvious question, but of course WP:V. One can probably never say "it is not known". Someone might. It is just that I do not know. How to formulate this? Besides, another FA requirement that I discovered browsing through FA discussions is that according to user Buidhe source descriptions should include OCLC numbers if there is no ISBN. I do not think that is in MOS, but there seem to be some non-MOS extensions that are quite regularly demanded in FA or by GOCE. Besides, it seems to be often the same who discuss with the nominator in the FARs: Aoba47, Buidhe, Hog Farm, Lee Vilensky, Nikkimaria, SandyGeorgia. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * At backslash (\), I wrote "Wikipedia editors have been unable to find", which is nearly as weak. I suppose you could spend weeks digging in the national archives but then you would fall foul of [WP:nor]]. You can't win! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I have no problems with your use of Sfn citations and use ellipses etc... as you have outlined. As long as these are done consistently throughout the article, I don't believe they are MOS issues. I am unaware of the Manual of Style suggesting foreign language titles and quotes need to be translated.

Congratulations on obtaining GA status for the article.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A class?
Hi Johannes, I suspect that you can see now why I don't meet the GOCE standard. :-D

Anyway, I don't think that you are allowed to award an 'A' classification yourself, you need to ask a disinterested member of the Wikiproject to do that assessment. I expect it will pass with flying colours but it will be more gratifying to be recognised by your peers. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear John Maynard Friedman. I am trying to go for an Military History A-Class review following their instructions and do not seem to get it right. They say I must ad "A-Class=current" to the talk page and then "from there" click on the "currently undergoing"-link. I must have misunderstood what they mean. I contacted Gog the Mild for FA mentoring who recommended I should put the article through an A-class review. As you see I got the a copy-edit from Twofingered Typist today. What are you up to? Did you hear anything from DYK for New Style Act? Greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never gone for A class but ok, I see now that it is "in process". I misunderstood, I thought you had assumed that this is what the GOCE review meant.
 * Yes, I saw that review, I suspect you were as shocked as I was when I saw the number of errors that 2FT found in the Calendar Act article. I would never qualify for membership of the Guild.
 * I'm expecting the DYK (that 25 March was New Year's Day) to appear on 25/3 next. But you never know, given that there are typically 20 to 30 candidates for five slots.
 * Nothing especially exciting, I have a running interest in typography so have been doing some work cleaning up long s. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If I were you, I would be tempted to believe that Donough MacCarty is being measured up and slimmed down for presentation as a FA candidate. My best wishes if so. (If it hasn't occurred to you already, I suggest you save the deleted table into your sandbox while it is fresh, as you may find a use for it later.)

On the transliteration of 'Oge', I suggest that you have over-analysed it and that you shouldn't get bogged down in trying to explain how the English spelling came about. I would just state as a bald fact that it is an approximation in English orthography of the Óg. In addition to Google translate, I found https://www.teanglann.ie/en/fgb/%C3%93g which you could cite (since Google anything causes knee-jerk reactions in some people). Unfortunately, there is no audio there or at google translate, so a purist might still challenge. If so, you would have to find somewhere that give the IPA pronunciation of the Irish $⟨Ó⟩$. Good luck with that! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear John Maynard Friedman. They recommend to take a mentor for the first FA and there is somewhere such a list. So I went and chose on that list and fell on a guy called Gog the Mild, who seems to be well known. He wants to take it slowly and cautiously and recommended to go for an A-Class review before attacking the FA, so I nominated it for A-Class. The A-Class procedure seems to be similar to the FA procedure. There are three reviewers. Greetings, Johannes Johannes Schade (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty
Hello! Your submission of Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Cite, cite and cite again
I thought that it may amuse you to learn that my DYK for the Calendar Act (on 25 March) nearly came unstuck because the reviewer wasn't satisfied that the article was adequately cited! They said that every paragraph should end with a citation mark and even wondered why the GA reviewer didn't pick it up. I resisted the temptation to say that it is not one of the GA criteria and just did what was needed. (I noticed that you've been adding ever more citations to D McC). Best of luck with the FA process. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

FAC process
Hi Johannes, I hope you don't mind but I've suggested that another editor,, compare notes with you on the FAC process as you have experienced it to date. They have recently achieved GA on an excellent article on an American artist, Edward Mitchell Bannister.

My best wishes for FA to you both. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
Hello, I'm 51.79.156.12. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Sir George Courtenay, 1st Baronet. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your 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. 51.79.156.12 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Family tree suggestion
Hi, I think that the tree (e.g. John Butler of Kilcash) would benefit by a clearer demarcation between the Butler and Fitzgerald earls. In the box, they all look to be 9th / 10th etc by coincidence. It gets confusing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear User:Laurel Lodged. Thank you very much for bringing this up. The colour coding is not very visible and readers do perhaps not consult the legend. However, I feel we should probably better move this discussion to an article's talk page where other users might participate. What do you think? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Let's take John Butler of Kilcash. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Laurel Lodged. Yes. Please place your post then on the talk page of John Butler of Kilcash. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexander MacDonnell, 3rd Earl of Antrim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geoffrey Browne.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for William Lyon Mackenzie
Thanks for your help with the William Lyon Mackenzie article in February, specifically for commenting at the first PR. I have nominated the article for featured article status and I hope you will comment on the nomination here. Thanks again for your help preparing this article. Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexander MacDonnell, 3rd Earl of Antrim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Borlase.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

success and warning classes
One or more or your scripts uses the  or   classes. Be aware that the styling for these classes may be removed in the near future. See WP:VPT for a list of scripts. --Izno (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

James Hamilton, Duke of Châtellerault
Dear Johannes Schade, in response to your message on my talk page, I very much appreciate your message and thank you for taking the time to make it. Certainly it is general practice for historical pieces to be cited at the end of the sentence rather than the beginning however, this is so that one can reach the end of the sentence and then look at the citations rather than being distracted in the middle of the sentence. This was the principle I was using to edit the pages I did, purely so that the clarity of the message was not undermined by a losing concentration due to focusing on citations. I have however also been making sure not to lose the accuracy of the previous citation placements by breaking sentences sometimes when a need for greater clarity of where the citation goes and reforming them around the citations. I have also made sure not that the order of the citations makes clear where they come in the sentence and not to remove ones that would lack the clarity of the sentence. However, thank you very much for your suggestions I shall reacquaint myself with the citing sources guidlines so that I can keep up to date with this. Please do get back into contact if you have any statements, questions or suggestions, it is always a positive thing to be questioned as it helps self improvement! Best wishes Angloscottish (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (BST)
 * Dear Angloscottish. You do not sound like a beginner at all. Thank you for your careful reply. You say "Certainly it is general practice for historical pieces to be cited at the end of the sentence rather than the beginning however, this is so that one can reach the end of the sentence and then look at the citations rather than being distracted in the middle of the sentence." I must say that is new to me. I do not remember having read anything like this in WP:CITE or other relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines. You are of course right: the marks for the citations in the text can become annoying and the tendency of the reviewers is to ask for more of them than in the past (GA and FA). I think in some future we will need a show/hide button for the marks in the text and the entire short and full citations below. It does become distracting, I agree. But for now we need to go on adding citations and I would think the marks should be placed where they logically belong and not be accumulated at the end of the sentence or worse at the end of the paragraph, but perhaps you can convince me of the contrary I might be wrong. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

John Everard (MP)
Thank you, Johannes. It looks good to me. :) Abillionradios (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Redmond Roche (MP), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mallow.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sir Valentine Browne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berwick.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

John Butler, 1st Earl of Gowran

 * Johannes, you are right. I will revert it. All the best Basher EyreBashereyre (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Changes to Guy Aldonce de Durfort de Lorges
See what you think about the new titles to the links on this page... Quebec99 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Quebec99 I still do not understand what you are doing. I have never seen Sfn used as you do. Perhaps this is due to my lack of experience. Do you feel that is now fine and you have fixed the citation error? Are you writing a program that fixes citation errors automatically? According to the documentation the first argument of Sfn is the surname of the first (or only) author. In our case this is "La Chesnaye des Bois". I do not understand why you want to append a sequential suffix "(a)", "(b)" etc. It breaks the link between the short and the long citation. For a good example of how to use Sfn look e.g. at Battle of Inverkeithing, a featured article (FA) by the venerable user Gog the Mild. He does not append such suffixes. Have you understood my description of the mistake I made? Would you allow me to fix it? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * sfn assumes a link to a book, but not to the particular page. Because all the sfn's link to the same book (the link that no longer works), but the many sfn's all have different content (page numbers and URL's), that causes the error. Like I said before, you can change it how you like. Cheers Quebec99 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Quebec99. I believe I have fixed it. I changed the Sfns back to uppercase as it was before. I use them like this so that I can be consistent in case. One cannot make them all lowercase, because some of them cannot be lowercased e.g. CSS image crop, TOC limit. I suppose we will have to see whether Guy Aldonce reappears in "Category:Pages with duplicate reference names" to see whether my fix was entirely successful. I think that is what you are working on. With thanks for your kindness and patience, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Johannes Schade, congratulations! It looks like you fixed it. Quebec99 (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Knocknaclashy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sir Valentine Browne, 2nd Baronet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel O'Sullivan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Charles MacCarty, 1st Viscount Muskerry
Hello, Johannes Schade,

Please do not change a redirect to point to a blank page or the redirect is likely to be deleted as a broken redirect. Feel free to change a redirect after a new, relevant article has been created on a subject, but not before there is an existing article to point to. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Liz. Thank you very much for your input. I do indeed still lack experience with handling redirects correctly. I often work on Irish biographies of the 17th century, most of them noble, and then was surprised to find (old) redirect pages linking to themselves on pages for the corresponding aristocratic title (I do not find examples of this any more, perhaps the one in question here was the last one?). I find this was not good and have in the past unsuccessfully tried to get rid of such redirect pages, but I do not know how to delete them. I believe you need to be an administrator (like you!) to be able to do that. The redirect page in question, i. e. Charles MacCarty, 1st Viscount Muskerry (without h) originally pointed to the article Earl of Clancarty and appeared on that page pointing to itself. I had created the article Charles MacCarthy, 1st Viscount Muskerry (with h) in February but had not realised that the mentioned redirect existed and should point to it. So recently I tried to unlink (but not repoint) that redirect page from all the places where it was used but could not delete it from Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics/Missing topics (what has Lord Muskerry got to do with Australia?). I then found that I could simply repoint the redirect page to the article page Charles MacCarthy, 1st Viscount Muskerry (with h) instead of the page for the title. That seems to have solved the problem. According to me the redirect did at no time point to a blank page. However I have problems editing the last three days. Some pages become unresponsive. I do not know why. Best regards and thank for caring, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sir Henry Lynch, 1st Baronet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John More.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOjs UI icon signature-ltr.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Cormac MacCarthy a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Cormac Laidir MacCarthy, 9th Lord of Muskerry. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Almeric de Courcy, 23rd Baron Kingsale, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Irish and Jacobite.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Garret Barry edit
This edit seems to have deleted a large section of the first paragraph of the "Irish Wars" section, with some of it reappearing now as the fourth paragraph of that section, starting clearly in unintentional error, mid-sentence and with a comma, with ", organised in the...". I've tried to work out what the intention was and as to which parts were intended to be retained and if any were intended to be deleted but it's not clear to me, so I thought it better to ask you to resolve the text, please. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Mutt Lunker. Thanks for telling. My bad. I must have been negligent or got interrupted. I have fixed it a bit this morning. This article still needs a lot of work. It was rated Start by MilHistBot in April but still has a Stub template on its text page, which I could probably take away. I do of course not want to rate articles where I am involved. Your input has been very helpful. I am still unsure in many respects of how things should really be done. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Charles MacCarthy, 1st Viscount Muskerry
Is there any direct evidence that he was definitely Catholic? The article suggests that his Catholicism is implied. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Laurel Lodge. Thanks for your interest in the article Charles MacCarthy, 1st Viscount Muskerry. I suppose you have seen that I cite Ohlmeyer who says "son of the staunchly Catholic Charles MacCarthy". I suppose this is "direct evidence" as far as Wikipedia goes. My opinion is that Charles was a Protestant in his youth while studying at Oxford and perhaps still when marrying Margaret O'Brien (about 1590), daughter of the Protestant 4th Earl of Thomond. He seems to have become Catholic later. Perhaps when his father, Cormac MacDermot MacCarthy, 16th Lord of Muskerry, was buried at Kilcrea Friary, quite certainly in a Catholic ceremony, or when marrying Ellen Roche, daughter of the 7th Viscount Fermoy (probably after 1636). It also is a strange thing that he as a Catholic was buried in Westminster Abbey, but probably under Charles I any favour could be bought. In general I have the impression that the MacCarthys of Muskerry met the wind as it blew. Under Elizabeth when the pressure was strong, they played with being Protestant, but later they returned to Catholicism, once they had been accepted into the nobility as viscounts of Muskerry and when they found that under James I and Charles I most of the anti-Catholic legislation was not really implemented. Have you found some better references? Please, contribute to the article if you can. Also to the article of his son Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty, which is under A-Class review. Perhaps you could even help review it? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I suspect that all that you have written above is correct. However, it leaves me uneasy that it borders on WP:OR. I'd prefer to have a few more citations to that effect. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Laurel Lodge. What I have written above is my opinion, obviously WP:OR. This a talk page. The article Charles MacCarthy, 1st Viscount Muskerry of course should not be "bordering on WP:OR". Do you feel that the section "Religion" lacks proper citations? More specifically does the citation from Ohlmeyer not sufficiently support the statement "but later became Catholic"? How should it be amended (or should it best be deleted)? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't delete it, but I would be happier if we could find more unequivocal evidence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear user:Laurel Lodge. I added another citation regarding his conversion to Catholicism. Please have a look. Would you agree to advance this article from its present Start-Class rating to C-Class? I feel that this could be justified. Perhaps we could collaborate on this article and further improve its rating? I think your English is better and probably your knowledge of Irish History as well. What do you think? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing
Well, that is to say, compared with FAC. The criterion at ACR is "all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good day, User:Gog the Mild. I take this for an encouragement for the apprentice-reviewer to go on. The criterion in FA is "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;". The most evident difference is that inline citations are not explicitly required in ACR. However, the nominee does graciously provide them. General references seem to have gone out of fashion for article befond stubbyness (perhaps another archaic feature that could be thrown out in an RfC by CaptainEek). Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good morning Grasshopper. Indeed, indeed, it is encouragement. See Citing sources. In practice reviewers tend to generally use a lighter touch at ACR than at FAC regarding how rigorously source to text integrity is checked, but it is tricky to express that in an objective way. Good to see you homing your reviewing skills. As a FAC coordinator I frequently tell new nominees that an excellent way of learning what is and isn't acceptable at FAC - or, by extension, ACR - is to do ten or twelve reviews. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Gog the Mild. Very pleased to see You on my talk page. I did need a bit of encouragement, but criticism is also welcome. Perhaps I should have called myself Grasshopper. Thank you so much. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: Elizabeth Stanhope
Thank you for correcting my mistake! I got to the article completly by chance, just because on it.wiki they are now discussing whether to cancel the corresponding Italian article, here (which I find preposterous). I noticed the template "citation needed" and found the missing source here - as you can see, it's a 1836 edition by E.L. Carey & A. Hart. However, I wanted to quote from InternetArchive instead of GoogleBooks, and unfortunately in the process of moving from one source to the other I got to the wrong citation on the wrong edition... Luckily you were there and you were more careful than me: well done! thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

new Margaret Seton, Lady Paisley
You may enjoy this article, Margaret Seton, amongst Hamilton people. Best wishes,Unoquha (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Unoquha, I am honoured to meet you on my talk page. You know well that I appreciate you and your contributions, mainly for the depth of you history knowledge and your ability to find sources. It would be easy to criticise your article, which is not yet very developed. I was astonished to see that it is rated B. I do not think it fulfils all criteria (WP:B?). - I have pushed the article Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty to A-Class. It almost took a year. The reviewers say it is unlikely to pass FA because of my 2nd-language English and problems in the references, if I understand it right. I wondered what you think about it. Why don't you try to push some of your many articles to higher ratings, e.g. Good Article. I think it should be quite easy for you. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

source material
If you haven't already, please take a look at material available through The Wikipedia Library. While it might not help you get access to books, it does include many paywalled sources. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 17:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Macroom Castle
Hi, just to say am very pleased to see the expansion of this article. Am from the town myself (but living in Cork city) so am especially interested. Its great work, and best. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Ceoil I am very pleased to have somebody who is actually from Macroom helping me with this article. I have never been to the place. I came to edit this article because I was working on Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty.


 * I was I am not so sure about some of the statements I have made. Was the gatehouse ever part of the castle? It might be that the castle grounds never reached that far east. Do you know anything about the two cannons before the gate? They are missing on some not so very old photos (see https://www.facebook.com/groups/132649813612100/posts/1922319594645104/) They are called "Ardilaun's cannons" on the captions of certain photos.


 * I have the impression before the construction of the "residence block" in medieval or early modern times the castle was a more or less square four-tower keepless affair, a bit like Liscarroll Castle, but smaller and only four rather than six towers. There seem no maps or views of such oder states. Thank you so much. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Review of English Nouns
Thank you for taking this on! I really appreciate it. I'll try to respond to your suggestions soon.--Brett (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)