User talk:Dionysodorus

Welcome to Wikipedia!

- Welcome-

Cookies to welcome you! Hello, Dionysodorus! Thank you for your contributions. My name's Brambleclawx and I just wanted to say hi and Welcome to Wikipedia! If you need help, try looking at some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of the world's largest encyclopædia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name, the date and the time. If you are already loving Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field every time you edit. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Brambleclawx 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools User scripts

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Cottington, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rugby and Charles I (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

1918 Liberal candidate descriptions

Hi, I have noticed that you have been editing some of the party label descriptions in the constituency election boxes for the 1918 elections. The whole area of party labels for 1918 is a complex business. I think the term 'Coalition Liberal' is a term that is best avoided where possible when describing Liberal candidates at the 1918 General election. The term is confusing as a number of official Liberal candidates regarded themselves as Coalition Liberals, even though they were not awarded the coupon. Things can be further complicated by official Liberal candidates who were offered the coupon but repudiated it. I have sought to describe all official Liberal candidates as 'Liberal' and then indicated by note if they were endorsed by the Coalition Government and if they repudiated the coupon to state this also. At the time of the 1918 General election there was still only one Liberal Party in the country. It was not until after the election that a clear division emerged and by-election candidates between 1919 and 1922 could be distinguished between those who were Liberal and those who were Coalition Liberal. Graemp (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

My aim here has been to tidy up election pages a bit and improve their consistency and clarity. At the moment we seem to have some constituency tables pertaining to the 1918 election that refer to Coalition Liberals, and some that refer to Liberals with the bullet-point note that you mention. My initial impression, at least, is that the former method is preferable, because (a) I think it appears to be more common than the latter method among articles on the 1918 election; (b) it preserves consistency with the Infobox on the 1918 election page; (c) it preserves consistency with the treatment of "Coalition Conservatives" (who seem to be uniformly described as "Coaltion Conservatives", and not indicated as such with notes, in the constituency tables); (d) I don't think the bullet-point method looks quite as neat, because it throws the formatting of the tables off slightly.

I think on the whole it would be somewhat preferable to keep the tags "Coalition Liberal" and "Coalition Conservative" for the sake of consistency in these respects. It would also be a good idea to improve the 1918 election and Coalition coupon pages to provide a clearer explanation of the ambiguities inherent in the terms (I might have a go at that sometime). Dionysodorus (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is something to aim for where possible. I have been doing work on the 1918 constituency results for some time and can confirm that the use of 'Liberal' with a coupon note is more common than 'Coalition Liberal'. Likewise, the term 'Unionist' with any coupon note is more common than 'Coalition Conservative'. I agree that using the bullet point may not be the neatest but it is a common method used to highlight any particular point regarding the label for a candidate at an election. Perhaps more important than neatness is accuracy and conveying to the reader all the important information. Unfortunately, using the term 'Coalition Liberal' only, withholds more relevant information and using the term can also be inaccurate, as well as providing the reader with a misleading impression. There are some instances where the use of 'Coalition Liberal' is advisable, such as in constituencies where there was more than one Liberal and it is clear which Liberal was the official Liberal eg. Bishop Auckland.

I think the 1918 General election page serves a different purpose and that it helps the reader to classify the Liberals into two different groups and thus on that page use the term 'Coalition Liberal' more freely. There are classification errors and inconsistencies on that page which I have largely ignored and have no plans to address. Anything you can do to improve that page should be welcomed. Graemp (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Myself I still rather think it would be preferable if the 127 seats mentioned at United Kingdom general election, 1918 as "Coalition Liberals" corresponded exactly to 127 seats at List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1918 (there are 124 there, if my count was right), and if all these "Coalition Liberals" were described as such in all places. I also don't really think Coalition Liberals running against Liberals ought to have a different colour from Coalition Liberals not running against Liberals; either they all ought to be bullet-pointed Liberals, or they all ought to be "Coalition Liberals".

Anyway, I'm not trying to be contentious, just to tidy up really, and I do think there ought to be some kind of system - so if you would like to revert any of what I did/put it in line with your previous system, please feel free to. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

You highlight the numerical discrepancy between United Kingdom general election, 1918 and List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1918. I think United Kingdom general election, 1918 is/should be concerned with candidates elected, whereas List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1918 is/should be concerned with the party whip those elected took upon election and subsequently throughout that parliament. The discrepancy you highlight can be explained by the difference in classification of some individuals at the election and in the subsequent parliament. I have not carefully checked the classifications in List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1918 but I do know that 136 Liberals were elected with the support of the coupon and 29 without. Of those 136 couponed Liberals, only 128 took the Coalition Liberal whip. Of those 29 uncouponed Liberals 10 took the Coalition Liberal whip. Therefore, in my view, List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1918 should describe 138 Liberals as 'Coalition Liberal' and 27 as 'Liberal'. As for the article United Kingdom general election, 1918 the table and infobox as currently presented, should show 27 as 'Liberals' and 138 as Coalition Liberals. The split currently used in the article is one used by one particular reputable source. However reputable sources disagree with each other. It is for this reason that I have steered clear of editing United Kingdom general election, 1918. I think there are only three of your edits that I would want to revert/clarify; Bedford, Swansea East, Brecon and Radnorshire. As regards the Members of Parliament tables in all the constituency articles, my view is that they should follow the same principal as the tables in the various List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election tables, in that they should indicate what whip the individual took rather than any label they used during an election. Graemp (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to write "Therefore, in my view, List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1918 should describe 138 Liberals as 'Coalition Liberal' and 27 as 'Liberal'. As for the article United Kingdom general election, 1918 the table and infobox as currently presented, should show 29 as 'Liberals' and 136 as Coalition Liberals."?

Anyway, the situation you describe is not the situation currently in place, either on the election page, or on the list of MPs elected. The election page has 127 Coalition Liberals (against your 136?), whereas the list of MPs has 124 (against your 138 - I think). (Do you know where the discrepancy between the current situation and your figures comes from?)

For the moment at least, I think you should go ahead and revert/clarify those edits that you mention as you see fit. I think that, ideally speaking, it would be a good idea if someone went through the articles and clarified the terminology and categorisation that is being used in each case (e.g. it's not at all clear to the reader at the moment that the election article is supposed to be indicating what they ran as, or the MP list indicating what whip they took, and there are other unclear elements), explained exactly how the numbers add up in the election article, and ensured that this was actually what is going on across the board - but of course that would be somewhat complicated and I probably won't get round to it anyway. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the table and infobox as currently presented, in my view should show 29 as 'Liberals' and 136 as 'Coalition Liberals'.

I think it is hard to interpret a situation in place based on the 1918 articles due to the discrepancies that exist. As I said, different sources provide different figures. Check out the Josiah Wedgwood article as an example of how different interpretations can be made. It was not easy when party labels did not appear on ballot papers. Graemp (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, rather hard. I do, though, think it would, if one put one's mind to it, be possible to set down reasonably consistent principles, and ensure that each individual MP - even cases such as Wedgwood, with appropriate caveats stated in the right places - get put down under the same heading on different tables where appropriate (and under different headings in the eighteen or so cases where the whip was different from whether the MP was couponed). This might, in some cases, involve adhering to one set of data and putting down the other, say, as an alternative where it differed. But I do understand that the whole thing isn't black and white, and it would take a fair bit of doing. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

French legislative election, 1919 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Democratic Alliance

French legislative election, 1973 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nancy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Niobe may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• has been associated with Niobe's legend since Antiquity<ref>E.g. by [[Quintus Smyrnaeus]], i.390ff ([http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/ArtemisWrath.html Theoi.com on-line quotation]</ref>]]
• ] (the pale one).<ref>[[Pausanias (geographer)|Pausanias]].''Description of Greece'' 2.21.9 <</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French legislative election, 1893, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sadi Carnot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Vaughan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Vaughan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:INTEGRITY

Hello. Please note that this edit was not helpful. It obfuscated what the source really says (*guraj is not mentioned in the source). Also you got the title wrong. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I see I didn't state this in the talk page, but I was also tidying up Boeotia at the same time - which had a section on Graia which I removed. So as well as merging Graïke into Graea, I also copied into Graea some information on Graea from Boeotia (rather than simply deleting it), which apparently wasn't sourced properly. Anyway I'm glad you've picked up on it. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Liaison Committee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Frank Field, Robert Neill, Neil Carmichael and Julian Lewis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Also at AN over your support for the draft prod nonsense. Wikijuniorwarrior (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)