User talk:Timothy Titus/archive4

This is an ARCHIVE page of old messages. You can visit my user page by going HERE.

Great Orme Tramway
The Great Orme Tramway has its own subcategory within the funicular railways in Wales category. It's redundant and unnecessary to list the article in the latter if it already has its own specialized subcatgory. Jackdude 101 talk cont 15:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Charles Lyell
Regarding Charles Lyell, the reference I have comes from a booklet published by the Oxford and Cambridge Club which lists all the freemasons of the apollo Uni lodge who died in the war. Here is a link to the pdf of the booklet: https://oxfordandcambridgeclub.co.uk/app/uploads/2015/09/OC_WWI_Book_FINAL.pdf 192.76.8.78 (talk) AM


 * Thank you. That should be sufficient as a source. I will add the citation.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT 17:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Military Rank Monaco
Template:Military Rank Monaco 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) 21:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UK Customs rank insignia
Template:UK Customs rank insignia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Japan
"List of countries without armed forces" There I made an edit with removing Haiti and Japan from lead of that article. They has armed forces and article is about countries without. I saw to you put it back and it is fine cuz it is better explained and more better fit in the body of the article with you addictional edit. But seems to for example to add note about Japan can make some kind of edit war. Some users think to Japan does not have an armed forces or to it has "limited military capacities" what is not true, Japan has armed forces, organised and equiped totally in that way, totally separated from police and under control of independent Ministry of defence and recognised by other armies in a form of cooperation with etc. So maybe note about Japan and Haiti should be removed or should be paid more attention to users does not change facs according to their personal views or so. 77.46.180.18 (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

SJA rank slides
Hi, a while ago you made loads of rank slides for the St John Ambulance Wikipedia pages. You don't happen to still have the vector formats? Berrely​ | 𝕋𝕒𝕝𝕜 𝕋𝕠 𝕄𝕖 19:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah. I'm sorry, but I don't. It was a very long time ago, and regrettably I no longer have them. Sorry.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT 11:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Order of Saint Lazarus (statuted 1910)
Hello Timothy Titus,

We wanted to make a change in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Saint_Lazarus_(statuted_1910) but this one has been deleted.

Why ? How to validate the modifications?

Thank you in advance for your reply

--CR257 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Your revert at Fifteen-inch gauge railway
Tim, the capping of Pint-Sized Pufferbelly is not supported by sources. See news search, which includes Pint-sized Pufferbelly, pint-sized Pufferbelly, and pint-sized pufferbelly, multiple times each; the guideline you linked says use lowercase for such situtations. And we don't usually put external links in tables, especially promotional ones, so I don't understand why you prefer that one. A news article about it would make more sense as a reference. Dicklyon (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The railway itself uses the name Pint-Sized Pufferbelly, which is what one would expect in a proper name, anyway (whatever errors may be made or replicated by third-party reporters in news sources). The railway's own website used the name Pint-Sized Pufferbelly up until earlier today; although this afternoon they seem to have removed all references to their subsidiary attractions on their website, and replaced them with a Coronavirus closure notice. Nonetheless, I can't think of any railway that fails to use capitals for each component of its name. The only reason for not using capitals in this case would be if you think that "Pint-Sized Pufferbelly" is not the line's name, but merely a generic description - but that seems an odd notion.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT 18:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We prefer to look to independent sources to see if something is treated as a proper name. That site caps lots of stuff, even Online Store in sentence context like "Find a sampling of these items at our Online Store." And Fun Extras and Station and other stuff in "Before or after your ride, the Fun Extras at the Station include our shops, playground, Cranky Cars, Pump Car and Pint-Sized Pufferbelly (open seasonally)."  Even if it's a proper name, it would be odd styling to cap the "Size" part in the hyphenated compound (few sources do that). Dicklyon (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

IOM Police rank table
I was just thinking about readding the rank categories of Officer and Chief Officer to the table as it clearly defines the seperation between the ranks and makes senior ranks within the force easier to identify. Officer would replace the Standard Officer title as you noted, "Standard Officers" is not a referenced term. However in my oppinion it would be better to have the table match the formatting of all other UK police rank tables and have a standard layout. Brought it here as I didn't want to just overwrite your edit without discussion. Thanks. Terasail (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Terasail, and thanks for posting. I agree with you that it would be preferable to adopt a common style across all templates, though I disagree about how best to achieve that. I would strongly advocate removing all references to "chief officers" or similar terms from these templates, for three reasons:
 * (1) What purpose do such notes serve? A person looking at a rank table wants to see the sweep of ranks from top to bottom (or bottom to top, as the case may be). Structural divisions within those ranks may be reflected in the text of the article, but are out of place in the summary tables.
 * (2) Consistency with similar tables. We don't do it, for example, on the table of British Army officer ranks. We could put artificial headers to indicate the ranks commonly held by company officers, those by battalion staff, those by regimental and brigade commanders, etc, etc, but we don't, and rightly so. It's just a potential confusion.
 * (3) There is no authoritative source for such headers in the police rank tables. For example, the colloquial phrase "Chief Officers" refers to London officers at the rank of Commander and above, or county officers at the rank of ACC and above; however in statutory usage the same phrase refers only to Chief Constables and Commissioners, and refers to all of them corporately; the similar phrase "Senior Management" or "Senior Managers" refers to a series of post-holders, including many at the rank of Chief Superintendent. Where do we draw our arbitrary boundaries? In practical terms the most pronounced break is between the ranks of Sergeant and Inspector (i.e. between those who qualify for membership of the Police Federation, and those who do not), but that goes without similar recognition in the rank tables. Using the term "Officers" for ranks up to Chief Superintendent fails to recognise that Chief Superintendents are in "Senior Management", and is again contrary to the only statutory use of the term "officers" (without modifier) where it applies to all ranks inclusively.
 * So to my mind the answer is quite clear - don't include any such headers in the table. They aren't needed, they don't help, and they have the potential to cause confusion.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT 18:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, you have some very valid points that I hadn't considered and make a strong argument for removing them on the other templates rather than adding it back again. Terasail (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:UK police rank insignia


A tag has been placed on Template:UK police rank insignia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Terasail &#91;Talk&#93; 17:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

QE class edit summary
Hi. I wasn't taking issue with the tense - of course you're correct the ship is now in service. I was taking issue with the verifiability and making edits that aren't covered by the succeeding reference was not correct per WP:V and was misleading. Thanks for the additional references since however. Mark83 (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * That is very kind of you - thank you!  Timothy Titus Talk To TT 09:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
I notice that you are a regular editor at Church of England, so I wondered if perhaps you might be able to advise at Talk:Calendar (New Style) Act 1750? I suspect that we may have a very long-standing, credible, but unsupported assertion.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hackington
I hate to go on about this, but the edits to the Archbishops School are bothering me. The village of Hackington doesn't start until the top of St Stephen's Hill (with Down's Road being classed as the southern border of Hackington, and only on the east side of St Stephen's never on the west until north of Giles Lane), just past the northern and eastern boundaries of the Archbishop's School, and I can't find any sources that claim otherwise. Additionally your reference for this (which appears to be a reference about the Rector and not about the locale of the actual school), doesn't make it clear what it's covering. Can you provide the text in the source (as I don't have access to it) that clearly states that the Archbishop's school is in Hackington. Sorry about this, but I can't find anything to support it being in Hackington, and it's clearly outside the boundaries of what is classed as Hackington. It was only yesterday that a user started to make the claim that it is. Even the school makes no claim or mention of Hackington. Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. You seem to be confusing the civil parish of Hackington (which does indeed start just north of the school, and just north of my house, coincidentally) with the ancient village of Hackington, whose centre is the old village green and parish church. If you look at the references on the Hackington page you will find plenty of data about the traditional definition of Hackington (which is quite different from the modern civil parish, based on Tyler Hill). The Archbishop's School is a Church of England School, making it more significant which parish (church parish) it is located in (not least since the ecclesiastical parish of a church school has the responsibility for providing the Foundation Governors, either directly or through the DBE and Deanery), which in this case is the parish of Hackington (St Stephen). The editor who added the location did state clearly that he was referring to the village of Hackington. When I re-added the same information I was perhaps less clear, but I did subsequently add a note to make clear the distinction between the ancient village of Hackington and the modern civi parish of Hackington. The limits of Hackington (both as an ancient village, and as a current ecclesiastical parish) are perfectly clear; the only possible confusion is with the civil parish, but the note added to the article makes that distinction clear enough.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT 03:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

US representatives and notability
Would you not concede that US representatives are automatically notable, whether they have a wikipedia article or not? -- Cimon Avaro&#59; on a pogostick. (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Freemasonry is an enormous organisation, with around 6 million living members today - the number of historic members is almost incalculable. Therefore lists of members (present or past) need to be carefully managed. There are many Grand Lodges with extensive "famous members" lists, indeed there are even some individual lodges in that position (see, for example, Apollo University Lodge, with an enormous notable former members list due to its association with Oxford University). In general Masonic articles with membership lists follow the gold standard set by the master list at List of Freemasons, which is that names only get listed if they fulfil two criteria: firstly, the person in question has an individual Wikipedia article, and secondly there is a reliable source to show that they were genuinely a Freemason.  Timothy Titus <i style="color: orange;">Talk To TT</i> 01:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Him Enrique Lago
I wonder, could you cast your mind back 2.5 years? In these two edits about Anglican bishops of Chilé, you added the name of auxiliary bishop "Him Enrique Lago". However, I can't find any sources for the name Him, apart from mirrors of wikipedia; usually it seems his name is Enrique Lago (Zugadi). Before I assume this was a mistake, might you remember how you came to add Him? DBD 09:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the name was taken from the "Our Bishops" (Nuestros Obispos) page of the Church's own website. This page was entered as a reference, although the page no longer appears to exist. His own page on Wikipedia is entitled Him Enrique Lago, and you may perhaps get some information from editors on that page? He is regularly cited as both "Enrique Lago" and "Enrique Lago Zugadi", owing to the Chilean naming convention of taking two surnames (your father's first, and then your mother's).  Timothy Titus <i style="color: orange;">Talk To TT</i> 00:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou
Thanks for your reverts to edits by Ggggetitgurl today. Welcome to the world of chasing sockpuppets - Sockpuppet investigations/Politialguru 10mmsocket (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

 * Thank you! Very much appreciated.  Timothy Titus <i style="color: orange;">Talk To TT</i> 08:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Zero Hubbard for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zero Hubbard is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Zero Hubbard until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ♟♙ (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UK Coastguard rank insignia
Template:UK Coastguard rank insignia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)