Hello, CalzGuy, 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 take 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wye School 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wye School until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CalzGuy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wye School.
Message added 10:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CatcherStorm ^talk 10:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CalzGuy. You have new messages at CatcherStorm's talk page.
Message added 10:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

CatcherStorm ^talk 10:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rye Studio School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free school. 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) 09:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Teaching school, and it appears to include material copied directly from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/teaching-schools-a-guide-for-potential-applicants.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Gatwick School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free school. 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) 08:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Godalming Town F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southern League. 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) 10:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CalzGuy. Did you revert my edit because I did not write any edit summary? If so, I can understand that when the purpose of the change is not obvious, but here, changing "an football club" into "a football club" speaks for itself, doesn't it? Nomarcland (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sing Street, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rio, Car ferry and Maneater. 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) 09:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your updates regarding Sing Street. I agree, the article's talk page is the better place to hash out the use of language in these minor points.

Thanks again,

Nrkblue (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Nrkblue[reply]

Per WP:BLPSOURCES we cannot use tabloids to source anything even slightly controversial on an article with implications for living people. --John (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's your concern with this? Her attendance is properly cited in her article. Generally that is the way school articles are done. If you insist on a citation in the school article why don't you go and copy it from her article instead of restoring the cn? I'll do it if you insist, but really... Meters (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I added it myself since you seem to prefer to add cn's rather than add the ref you already know is in Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one answered, and I don't have any ideas. If it was about the technical requirements, WP:VPT would be the place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Golden Horde (band), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Damned and The Fall. 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) 09:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CalzGuy, Don't worry about it this time but infuture when you request merges could you make sure you put the discussion on the merged article (IE if you want to merge St Thomas of Canterbury Church of England Aided Junior School then the discussion should take place at Talk:St Thomas of Canterbury Church of England Aided Junior School or if you want to merge Florida then discussion would take place at Talk:Florida,
Obviously I didn't realize you'd posted it at the other talkpage as had I done so I wouldn't of reverted,
Thanks & Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk

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.

List of schools in Surrey

added links pointing to Ashford, Cobham, Sutton, Redhill, Lingfield and Ewhurst

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The prose in my version is better and reads more like an encyclopedia article rather than a press release. I'm interested to understand why you feel the old way was better. --Deathawk (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scarborough University Technical College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scarborough. 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) 11:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CalzGuy, That was a pointless reversion of my change. I had earlier created the link, and removed it when I noticed that the link was already present in the introduction to the article. I was following general WP policy against redundant links. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CalzGuy, 1) She had a six to seven year career with the Danish Navy, and several notable Danes served on her. Her career as a Danish vessel was as long, and as notable, as her RN career. Perhaps some Danes will find her and add to her Danish history. It an Anglo-centric ethnocentrism to privilege her RN name over her DN name just because we have readier access to English-language materials online than we do Danish, or because we don't read Danish and there are fewer Danish-speaking wikipedians than anglophonic ones. 2) We have many articles in which the vessel is listed under her Danish, Dutch, French, or Russian name, not her English name. 3) Lastly, Her RN name per Colledge, Winfield, London Gazette, Lloyd's List, and the National Naval Museum's (Greenwich) database, was Frederickstein, not Fredericksteen. That's how I was able to find the info and fill out what was a stub. At the very least it would be stupid to revert her to an incorrect name. We can easily handle listing the article under her launch name by putting in a redirect from her correct RN name. Anyone looking for her will seamlessly be directed to the correct article. Should I do that, or will you?Acad Ronin (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CalzGuy, Here's how I see this. Seven months ago you started the article, but without checking to see that you had the vessel's name correct. Also, in all that time the article stayed a stub. You apparently did't care enough to build the article out; if you had, you would have recognized the misnaming and could have fixed it. Had she been named correctly I would not have moved her. Given that she was misnamed, I had to move her. Before I moved her, I did a lot of research, which is why her RN history is built out; if my Danish were anything more than minimal, the DN section would be greater. Now you are expressing righteous indignation that I didn't fix your mistake in the way that you could have done any time in the past seven months. In all of this, notability is irrelevant. That is an obsolete criterion left over from dead tree days. A simple redirect would handle the issue of anyone looking for her under her RN name. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CalzGuy, I owe you a profound apology. You beat me to it on the talk page, and documented the problem well. Acad Ronin (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I'm not gonna undo your removal of the date on the page for the headmaster joining, but if you look through the edit history, it was previously flagged for not having a proper date, hence I had added it and sourced it as such. Would it be best therefor if the date was kept?

MattIPv4 (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the unreferenced source for the entry requirements section of the sixth form section. How do I show that two sections share a source? The source at the end of the subjects list also covers the entry requirements? MattIPv4 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CalzGuy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CalzGuy. Just wanted to give a clarification that the "Accolades" section of WP:FILMMOS specifies "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability. Because of the proliferation of film festivals and 'award mills', festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus. Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included." The other editor was correct in saying that the Phoenix critics and other non-notable critics groups should not go into film articles. I hope this helps clear up any misunderstandings. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was a service that was administered by the sick and hurt board from its inception until it was abolished in 1806 it was then administered by the transport board until 1832 of which there is no information provided in the article to explain that either also the boards appointed first a Physician of Fleet responsible from both boards inception until 1832 for Royal Navy Hospital (services) RN hospitals were then run by:

• Physician of the Navy, 1832 to 1835
• Physician-General of the Navy, 1835 to 1841
• Inspector-General of Naval Hospitals and Fleets. 1841 to 1844
• Director-General of the Medical Department of the Navy, 1844, 1917
• Medical Director-General, 1918-present who runs the, Royal Naval Medical Service

There is no correlation in both articles at all that one led into the other and as I am drafting articles about organizational structure within the admiralty:

• User:Navops47/draft/ADM 16th century
• User:Navops47/draft/ADM 17th century
• User:Navops47/draft/ADM 18th century
• User:Navops47/draft/ADM 19th century

Rather than REVERT without doing your homework correctly this article charts the connection between the current and past hospital/medical services http://www.britishnavalhistory.com/wickstead_rnms_earliest_times/ and shortly will expand and make the connection between both.--Navops47 (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Rather than add unreferenced content, wouldn't you be better off finding reliable sources for your contentions first. Blogs generally don't come up to the required standard. What you are proposing is a significant change to the article lede. Is the article to be about the building, i.e. the hospital, or about a medical service. I think it needs to be discussed first. So I will copy this conversation to the talk page. CalzGuy (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly heads up on Riverside Primary School. I deleted the speedy tag, because schools are considered exempt from A7. Prod or AfD is the way to go on this one. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We appreciate your enthusiasm, but for the time being please leave the tagging of articles for deletion and merging to editors with experience. For more information see WP:NOR. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typo, should have read:WP:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer regarding the Downs is waiting for you at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire where user:DGG, one of our most senior experts on notability has commented. I'm not quite sure of your apparent innocent surprise at my comments about your lack of understanding of our rules and guidelines as expressed on my talk page, but a review of the comments here on your talk page clearly demonstrate that your interest and actions concerning our articles, particularly schools, are giving rise for concern. We can't remove your right to review new pages, because you haven't applied for it yet, but if necessary you might be officially requested to stop what you are doing. If you need help or encouragement, you'll find that Wikipedia is a very supportive environment, but only if you approach it with the right attitude. Thank you for your comprehension. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I don't find your comments in the least bit supportive. I don't want the right to review new pages. I have never asked for it, and I have no interest in it. I don't understand what youy mean by "stop what you are doing". I think it may be helpful if you DO go down that route of officially requesting it, because I might get an explanation as to exactly what it is you object to. I have read all the pages you have directed me to and don't understand why you think they apply to me, given that I don't patrol or review new pages. Maybe there is a slim nugget of info in those links you sent that does apply, but it has eluded me so far. If this was a supportive engagement between us, I would have thought that having asked for clarification 3 times you might be forthcoming with some. But continually responding with RTFM is not supportive in my world. CalzGuy (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can explain what the reasoning is behind this edit was, for example, I would be happy to explain why I think it was not quite right, and then we can go through your other edits and I can provide all the support you need, especially your choice of articles for deletion and merging. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

well my editing notes for that day are a little scratchy, and the handwriting is not the best, but I think I saw an edit with no edit summary that I didn't quite understand and reverted it and explained that in my edit summary. Looking at it now, nearly a year later, I can see I made a mistake, a characteristic you may not be familiar with. Luckily no one died or was seriously injured as a result. CalzGuy (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with our policies, guidelines and precedents, and try not to misquote the paper at OUTCOMES. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above's appointment as President of the Province of Connacht in the short-lived (or half-lived) Irish Republic is set out on his bio page. He was never the President of the Irish Republic. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CalzGuy. Re your revert of my edit of List of schools in Kent – I can see the point but schools such as Huntleys Secondary School for Boys (former school of Khalid Masood) have no page to record their existence. A "Former schools" section could remedy that. Unfortunately I couldn't immediately contribute more than this Suggestion but someone more familiar such as yourself could have more material ;) DadaNeem (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CalzGuy,

I can't find more current references. I do work in the school so can personally attest that the head teacher has changed.

It's going to take a while before the website to gets updated (the person responsible is on holiday until after Easter), but I'll see if I can get Edubase updated tomorrow.

Thanks,

~Bin~^talk 18:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The website (www.gilbertosullivan.net) that I'm adding to the Gilbert O'Sullivan page is a genuine website with excellent content for Gilbert fans. Why are you so insistent on removing the link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bother buí (talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wilson's School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletics. 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) 10:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CalzGuy, why the quotation marks? They are totally unnecessary. I have done several hundred articles without them and have not had any problem. It's only if you have punctuation in the name that you require them, and I don't. It just seems a wasted effort to go around inserting them. Your mileage may differ. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You changed ref name=Winfield to ref name="Winfield". Acad Ronin (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did I? LOL. HABIT I think. Change it back if you like. But that wasn't the reason for the edit. There was some italics in there that I was taking out. Make sure you don't restore that. CalzGuy (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re pot/kettle/black - not quite. I had put the ;s in a long time ago to create pseudo headings. Turns out that is a bad way of doing it because visual readers apparently can't handle them. However, the visual readers can handle the triple apostrophes, so if one is going to have pseudo headings that's the way to go. As a result, whenever an article comes up that I have edited, I go over it to replace any semi-colon pseudo heading. Cheers,Acad Ronin (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calzguy, this is the Official British & Irish Lions logo that has been passed on to me from the organisation to use on the pages so that it falls within their brand guidelines. They were happy for it to be uploaded under the creative commons licence. There should be no reason to revert it to the image it was prior to my change. Cheers, (JacksonTC90 (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I see you undid my addition of the locality field to the lead infobox and moved the link to Colwall elsewhere. may I ask why? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that somehow 'pupils' is British English really is nonsense. If it was true, then the {{Infobox UK school}} wouldn't say 'students'. CalzGuy (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The English language is not defined by Wikipedia templates. Ofsted use "pupils". The source cited for that part of the lede uses "pupils" when discussing it. The staff and governors quoted in that source use both terms. It's also now inconsistent within the article.

It is worth taking a look at the lede of Featured Articles about UK schools. They use "pupil" when referring to enrolment below sixth form level, as is the case here.

It is not ideal to edit-war on the article and then to come to my talk page to declare things to be "nonsense". It would be better to discuss the wording on the talk page of the article. MPS1992 (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I started the EW, however, I think it is possible to cite authoritative sources for both forms in relation to this school. Ofsted do not exclusively use 'pupils' in preference to 'students' even if they have done for this school. Actually on checking, they use pupils in a standard heading and then go on to write 'Meetings were held with groups of staff, students and three members of the governing body ' and 'Students achieve well.' and 'Students’ achievement in science is good.' So that which the inspectors actually write for this school uses the term 'student'. Where the template they use refers to the learners it uses the term pupils'. Given that the same template is shared with primaries, that's not unexpected. Looking t the school website itself it uses 'student' almost exclusively. Working in and around UK schools both primary and secondary, it is generally the situation that the terms used are 'pupil' in the primary sector and 'student' in the secondary sector. It may have been otherwise after the last war, but I think the term 'British English' generally refers to current usage. CalzGuy (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which sort of explains why the template uses 'student'. Generally we only have articles for secondary schools, not their associated primaries. CalzGuy (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are just assertions based on, apparently, your personal observations. You are welcome to your views of how things should be, but please express them in a more appropriate location than my talk page -- especially if you are going to use three separate edits to make every reply. The IP is edit-warring, and so are you; not for the first time on that article, I notice. MPS1992 (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to move to your preferred venue. Just name it. -CalzGuy (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	pbs
	pbs Undertaker198419 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand your concern about this - have you not run across either pounds or cubic feet before? What are you finding unclear at Waterline? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CalzGuy, I've undone your edit as the school hasn't closed, it's just changed it's status. See [1]. HTH, --Bermicourt (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a suspicion I'd originally put it in; it's been awhile. I don't use it all the time, but in this instance, with a British subject, & since I'm familiar with it, it seemed an apporpriate usage. It never crossed my mind anybody wouldn't get it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WIthout looking at the page again, my understanding is, Cunningham had the senior command, so the ships (in this case in particular, the carriers) were coming from him. That puts the selected ships on his strength, & saying they were seems important. Was he in ultimate command of the op? I don't recall; if he was, it's especially important. If there's anything you're still not clear on about my reasons, do ask; I'm honestly not sure I understand your objection. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

♠I have seen it more than just the one time, & it would've been (IIRC) books from as late as about 1974. I just have no idea, as I write this, which ones it was, or even what the exact subject was. I could give you a list (maybe) of most of what I've read dealing with the RN, RAF, & B.A., but to actually find the usage means reading them again, & I'm not so invested in the phrase I'm going to do that. I'm also not sure the unclarity is as great as you presume; the simple meaning would indicate Cunningham had a number of ships including Eagle, no? That's about how I took it when I first saw it, & believe me, I didn't have anything like "extensive experience" with British military matters, or idiom, then.

Not a problem. Certainly finding one would be helpful to me to understand the nuances of the original intent, which is where I have greatest difficulty. But see below on this very point. CalzGuy (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

♠Your position on jargon may bother me more. If a page said somebdy'd ordered bangers & mash, would you want to change it? (Given a Brit subject.) I know, that term isn't common outside Britain, & people who know what it means aren't a dime a dozen, either. It is, however, accepted idiomatic English. I think this qualifes, too. I've seen some debate over whether RAF squadrons should be described as "No. #" or just "#", & IMO, the first is a peculiarly British usage. I wouldn't use it except to write about an RAF or RNAS (FAA) squadron, or on a page about a British subject. Neither would I delete it if it was used. Maybe the MOS needs to account for idiomatic phrasing, & not just spelling--& maybe, once in awhile, we have to live with a touch of confusion.

I don't believe so. I think bangers & mash is sufficiently ubiquitous in British English to mean it would be easily understood by the man on the street (in Britain). I think perhaps MOS:JARGON was not the right call. I think WP:TECHNICAL is closer to my position. I just feel that this is a phrase which may well be understood well by those familiar with the subject, but that outside that core, it isn't always understood. But on the clarity, I feel that if there is a simpler, more accessible version, which maintains the original intent we really need to be able to change it. CalzGuy (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

♠Bigger question: if you don't understand exactly what that phrase means, do you not understand the thrust of the sentence, & of that paragraph? Do you completely miss the idea the carrier was under Cunningham's charge? It may not be completely clear (to the unitiated) she was part of his force, but I don't think the gist of it gets lost. Do you disagree? (FYI, I'm saying "you" as proxy for "average reader" 'cause it's easier.)

I am getting there. The proxy idea is a good one. I think I now understand (but do not think it is terribly clear) that the strategic command of the Eagle was Cunningham's, but that this may not have been clear at that point in the narrative. Secondly that although she was the smaller of the 2, she was well equipped for the task at hand. Therefore he didn't hesitate to put her to use. But it's taken me a while to get there.

♠Also, FYI, I'm trying to avoid saying something like "part of Cunningham's fleet", because that has a specific technical meaning, & as I write, IDK if his command held fleet status, or force status, or task force status (not the same thing, BTW), or something else unique to RN I've never come across. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the nuance that was missing. I wasn't aware the force had a specific military meaning. Taskforce and fleet, yes. But I always treated force as being far more generic. If there were articles which explained the differences then a simple link to strength would avoid any arguments. Is it defined anywhere on WP, what the differences are? CalzGuy (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, I merged the histories of two identical pages. GiantSnowman 14:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what you wrote was not suitable, hence why I removed it. GiantSnowman 14:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the unsourced content. GiantSnowman 14:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V... GiantSnowman 14:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest... GiantSnowman 14:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEVAR... GiantSnowman 19:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CalzGuy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:HartleyWintneyFCLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]