User talk:Neveselbert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Neve-selbert)

Garret FitzGerald[edit]

Hey there! Figured I should bring up the shortdesc over at Garret FitzGerald up here. How is the previous description better? It will very likely lead to the belief that FitzGerald was Taoiseach continuously between 1981 and 1987, which he was not. How is it not better to be more accurate? Cheers, estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there estar8806, sorry for late replying, it's been my birthday today and I've been away for a bit. As for the description, it's the most concise, as it correctly states he was Taoiseach between those two years, as opposed to being in office from one year to the next, and also matches the sentence in the lead which states his being twice Leader of the Opposition between 1977 and 1982. That said, I've gone back and forth on what the descriptions for taoisigh should be exactly, as I'm not sure the ordinal necessarily should be included, as it isn't included in short descriptions for US presidents, though that might be because of WP:SDLENGTH. There's also the issue of capitalising "Taoiseach" if we do retain the ordinal, per MOS:JOBTITLES, which may or may not be necessary depending on whether we're able to consider it a common noun like "prime minister". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about the late reply! Hope you had a nice birthday. Regarding your point on concision, the description I wrote is only 1 character longer than the current description. In my opinion, 1 character shouldn't be a big deal when considering accuracy. It's also more consistent with how other world leaders who served non consecutive terms have their descriptions written (eg. Grover Cleveland, Harold Wilson, Alexis Tsipras, etc.). I'm likewise not sure about the inclusion of ordinals for taoisigh, I've seen some editors say that it should only be used for U.S. Presidents considering it's not exactly common to refer to leaders by their number in office elsewhere, but I can't be certain of that. Capitalization is obviously a sort of spinoff question of the inclusion of ordinals thing. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete!" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Delete! has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Delete! until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday[edit]

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: the Sunak rewrite I was talking about in January's coming along slowly, but nicely. It's a bit of a mess right now; hopefully Sunak takes his time in calling the election(!) Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim! I will just say though that your lede reads just a little presumptuously. I'd be a bit more guarded with my crystal ball; you never know until it actually happens, and Starmer is no Blair. When's your birthday, if you don't mind me asking? All the best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starmer is no Blair, but I'm intending to publish it after Sunak's gone: unless the party kicks him out (they won't) I can't see any other way—even if I'm wrong, a fix is only an edit away (although if I was doing a John Major rewrite in 1991 I might have had egg on my face ;) ). I'm 23 November, or as the box on my page insists on formatting it, "November 23". Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced there'll be a landslide until it actually happens, to be honest. Anyway, thanks for telling me about your birthday (which, coincidentally, is also my stepfather's birthday) . ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there will be, and the way it's shaping up it has the potential to be even worse than 97. Everything I've read in research for both Truss and Sunak is just grim for the Conservatives. There's clearly huge appetite for change, especially up here, and I just can't see the inevitable Labour win being slim. We'll see . Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the same if Labour had a charismatic and youthful leader like Blair, but I just can't imagine Starmer being that person. He's a latter-day Harold Wilson at best, and I think the election will probably result in a 1964-style victory for Labour. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting comparison. Sunak is similar is some ways to Home: wealthy, fairly stiff in interviews, fairly shaky claim to the premiership, a warring cabinet and (presumably) a Parliament dissolved at the last minute. Similar too to Ted Heath: large EU negotiations, a premiership dogged by strikes and issues with energy supply, similar cabinet divisions, troubles in Northern Ireland and both created one of their predecessors foreign secretary. Wilson didn't get a convincing majority (or majority at all) in either 1964 or Feb 1974 (or even in Oct 1974; 1966 is a bit different). Anyway, the admins will have my guts for garters if I keep FORUMing; just food for thought. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2024[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostitle[edit]

I believe you are misunderstanding WP:MOSTITLE and it is perfectly correct to use a capital when referring to, e.g., "10th Taoiseach of Ireland", as it is referring to a specific position. This would be in common with what's done with English prime ministers' short descriptions. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bastun, regarding British prime ministers' short descriptions, the difference is that they're not numbered, and the standard appears to be to use lowercase when the title is numbered; see Donald Trump's lead for example, 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. I'm not entirely clear whether this should apply to taoiseach, as it's a term borrowed from another language. Ordinarily, we would italicise it if in lower case, or use {{lang}}, though I don't know if such markup would be advisable here. I suppose we can leave it capitalised, though I'm not entirely convinced this is consistent with MOS:JOBTITLES. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we wouldn't italicise it, as while, yes, it comes from the Irish language, taoiseach is also the English-language word for the leader of the Irish government. See Taoiseach, specifically the lead paragraph. Regarding MOS:JOBTITLES, it's not at all clear that an unnumbered office should be Prime Minister while a numbered one should be taoiseach or president. I would suggest the opposite seems more likely as the numbered ones point to specific posts. Or maybe we should just leave well enough alone? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II Interview?[edit]

I greatly appreciate your improvements to my reference to the audio of the Queen's recollections of VE Day 1945. I added a further reference to programme name "The Way We Were" because the original programme name is not mentioned in the other sources. I struggled with what the title= should be, as the programme listing does not have an official title.

I have some qualms about the programme being described as an "interview", which is a question and answer format. I recall Alastair Bruce in I think it was The Coronation TV programme saying something along the lines of "the Queen is never interviewed", the protocol being that she was never asked direct questions by the media. Unfortunately I have been unable to find the whole programme so I am unable to find the context to determine if Godfrey Talbot had asked a question which would support the description of "interview".

Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corsac Fox Kazakhstan, I'm glad to be of help. I was able to find the interaction described as such on Google. Thanks for adding a further reference, which I'll have a look at. As for the title, I struggled with that as well while reformatting the citation, which made me reluctant to use {{cite episode}} instead. I would take Bruce's remarks as a general rule of thumb, rather than an absolute rule, as the Queen had been interviewed on specific topics of her interest where the questions were known to her in advance. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the trouble is that the Way We Were programme does nor quite fit any of the available citation categories, characteristic trammels of the products of modern American TV, that have no imaginative space for the more rambling nature of reminiscence. So interview is probably the best that we can do with what we have. I don't have time to get into investigating how new citation categories might be formed.
In The Coronation TV programme I was amused watching Alastair Bruce asking about how long the Queen spent in the coach, and she pointedly ignored him and carried on saying what she wanted to say. But then ignoring the question happens frequently in interviews. Do you have an example of where Queen Elizabeth is interviewed with prepared questions? I'd like to see how it was done. Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh I like what you did with the combined reference. Should it link to 8th May 1985 listing on the BBC website, rather than the 24th December 1985 listing? Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be best. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amess murder talk[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_David_Amess#Should_this_article_reflect_trial_accounts_of_the_attack/Ali’s_behaviour?

I have added the following link to the discussion as to whether we should rewrite the article to reflect how later accounts described the David Amess attack. This will be the last I will do the Amess articles, as it is too painful for me personally. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for telling me, however in future it would be more efficient if you notified some of the multiple WikiProjects these articles are of interest to, such as WT:CRIME, WT:ISLAM, WT:POLUK, WT:TERROR or WT:DEATH, in the case of Murder of David Amess, rather than individual talkpages. All the best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neveselbert&oldid=1219788036"