Previous · Index · Next

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (disambiguation) 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/Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (disambiguation) 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. StAnselm (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's a big deal, but if you go to use the test filter and see that it's already enabled, that probably means someone is using it. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Answered on user's talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC).

I noticed you created the side chain modification article recently - any objections to merging and redirecting to post-translational modification?

(BTW, I also cleaned up the nonstandard nucleotide issue on tRNA; thanks for the pointer to it!) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection - I would have merged it myself if I had been more certain that side chain modification is a proper subset of post-translational modification.

Thanks for cleaning up the tRNA issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks; merge done. Wow, does post-translational modification need some work. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you created the page just recently, could you check this diff please. --Midas02 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lower Clapton is part of Hackney,so the two statements are not in complete disagreement as far as that goes.

The DNB says "...born most probably in Hackney on 2 Sept. 1726. There is some uncertainty both as to the date and the place of his birth, but in default of absolute proof to the contrary the inscription on his monument in St. Paul's is likely to be correct."

The ODNB (subscription required) is more certain it's uncertainty "...was born in either Hackney or Enfield, probably on 2 September 1726. It is not certain that the inscription on his monument in St Paul's Cathedral, which gives Hackney as his place of birth, is correct."

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC).

Template:Merge section to 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) 23:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a looksie at Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim)‎ Paul Austin (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref name added has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. NSH002 (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Statue of George Palmer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! '''tAD''' (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undated 06:14, 31 May 2015