User talk:Ralbegen/Archive 4

MOS:HON
Hello, sorry for taking up your time but I am rather confused. I have seen the use of Sir/Dame in infoboxes of numerous British politician articles - not his/her own biographical article, e.g. as in predecessor and successor of an office. I was just trying to comply with this convention; as you've pointed out I misunderstood the guideline, is there any way I can maintain the convention in British political articles? Thanks in advance and take care. NYKTNE (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, nothing to apologise for! I think the guideline is that if the honorific is longstanding then there's not a pressing reason to remove it. My approach is to presume against including it and never to add it anywhere. Especially for modern politicians (as opposed to aristocrats, for instance) I think it's usually not appropriate to use "Sir" or "Dame", or to refer to them as "The Baron ____" if they're a peer. Using common, normal names wherever possible! Ralbegen (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kindness. Hope you are safe and well in these circumstances. Although I understand your point of view, I do find myself sticking to my original opinion, which is, unfortunate the opposite of yours, to include Sir/Dame and to use "The Lord XXX" with the rationale behind it being that the person is entitled to be addressed in his/her full title and that it has been a convention in British politicians articles to use Sir YYY XXX and The Lord XXX in Wikilinks, especially in infoboxes. I really do apprehend that normal names are simpler and easier to be understood, but Wikipedia needs to let our readers know the person's official title and the formal way to address that person. NYKTNE (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daniel Kawczynski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Daniel_Kawczynski check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Daniel_Kawczynski?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

David Evans (political official)
The source may be primary but is perfectly satisfactory for such a basic fact as a date of birth it is not contentious. Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, WP:BLPPRIMARY which I linked to in my edit summary says Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, which I think is pretty unambiguous? Ralbegen (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Next United Kingdom general election
I do not understand what's the issue here. I was explaining the context of a quoted comment of mine from a discussion that took place one year ago. I explicitly avoided giving out the name of any user so as to avoid any sense of bad faithing, but this is what happened at the time: there was an edit war about adding/removing the infobox, a discussion took place, a consensus arose for keeping the infobox (and TILE was favoured over TIE for "next elections"), but then another edit warring ensued because a number of (previously undiscussed) issues were subsequently brought by some of the users that had pushed for the infobox's removal (such as raising the flag issue). My quoted comment was written within that context, and that is what I felt in the need to explain to avoid misinterpretations of my own words. So for you to know, I did not write it to appeal to any user in particular, nor to keep a discussion on it, nor was thinking on any specific user when I wrote it. Cheers.  Impru 20 talk 10:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm glad that you weren't aiming it at any user in particular. But I still think that saying that users were "mutilating" the infobox is an accusation of bad-faith editing, compounded by the suggestion that they were doing so because their preferred option wasn't consensus in a discussion. I think the way you've phrased your summary of the events here is significantly preferable. Thanks again for engaging. Ralbegen (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack Buckby
Check the Talk page on Jack Buckby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosswikieditor (talk • contribs) 16:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"2019–20 Scottish Conservative Party leadership election" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2019–20 Scottish Conservative Party leadership election. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_after_2019_(LOESS).svg
Thank you for your work periodically updating (and refining) this. It's much appreciated. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Glad you like it. Ralbegen (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Opinion polling fixes
Hi, I was wondering if you could please make some fixes on some polling tables? On the page Leadership approval opinion polling for the next Senedd Cymru election it is stated to use dmy dates but the tables are incorrectly dated month and then day. I managed to change this around (see my edit in the history section for how) but it messed up the 'date to' section. I realised how to fix this but I have no programme or automated way to do it and I kept messing up somewhere along the process of individually fixing each date. I was wondering if you could please help? Helper201 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry it's taken me so long to reply. It looks like there's already some discussion about changing to the optdr (?) format of a single date column, which might be a better solution that's easier to implement? Ralbegen (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
Region: "an area, especially part of a country or the world having definable characteristics". There is no other adequate term to encompass describing multiple parts of the United Kingdom. Please self-revert. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting in touch! "Nations and regions" is a standard way of referring to parts of the UK including the regions of England and the other three home nations. Referring to Scotland and Wales as regions is sometimes seen as offensive and very easy to avoid using a standard formulation. If you want to talk about this further then the article Talk page is the place for discussions about article content! Ralbegen (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They are regions as well as constituent countries and nations. National polling refers to the United Kingdom overall, not Scottish and Welsh polls for Westminster elections, while regional applies to any part of any country. Happy to take this to the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)