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)[reply] 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

you shouldn't criticize people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akskdjfjrhrheh (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

You need a kitty too

Akskdjfjrhrheh (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussions

Don't worry! I'm not contesting anything; I come in peace! I noticed your note at WT:ANI about recently clearing out the backlog at ANRFC. Thanks for helping out! I just wanted to make myself available if you wanted help getting into assessing consensus at some of the more obscure areas of the site. For instance, WP:CFD could always use more closers (and participants). I'm one of the regular closers there and at WP:TFD, but my activity is likely to go down over the next year, so I'm more-or-less trying to "train" people in these areas to keep them from going to shit when I'm not around. Anyhow, let me know if you're at all interested. I'm also happy to look over past closes for a friendly peer review or give advice/mentoring on closing in general if you think that would be helpful. The site needs an army of non-admin closers to keep itself sustainable with the lack of new admins. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:BU Rob13! That's very kind of you, and I shall ask you if I find myself in need of advice. I don't know if I will get involved at CFD or TFD, although I might have a look sometime. I shall probably continue to keep an eye on AN/RFC though. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since another backlog will no doubt amass at AN/RFC in due course, if mass-listing there continues to be done. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on numbers of aircraft built in lists

Hi, My apologies for bothering you on the closure of this RfC (for which, many thanks). There seems some disagreement over the meaning of the "status quo" in your summing-up, which I am hoping you can clarify. On the one hand there is the current guideline. On the other hand there is a longstanding practice in certain lists, which predates the guideline and so is regarded by some as the "status quo" which the guideline is challenging. This is resurrecting the old edit wars. Would you be able to clarify which you mean? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steelpillow: I've gone on holiday and will have a look when I get back in a week (no proper computer here). But, off the top of my head, I think your opening of the RfC said that there was a pre-existing consensus, and therefore I assumed that Option A and the status quo basically amounted to the same thing? But if that's under dispute I might need to clarify my close. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was - and is - my view. But some other editors argued that the true "status quo" consensus is different from that presented in the guideline and so are taking your statement to mean what they want it to. They are continuing their edits on that basis. Have a great holiday. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (A. M. Dale) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating A. M. Dale, Dionysodorus!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for this. I've added as online-available sources the obituary in her papers, which is available on Google Books, and also a source for her time at Bletchley Park by Thomas Webster. You might want to take a look at the chronology of her early career, though - her obituary has a different chronology (Vienna and Lund first, then Oxford) and place of birth (West Bridgford just outside Nottingham, not Sheffield).

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

User:Blythwood, thank you. However, the source doesn't say she worked at Bletchley Park, as your edit suggests; so I think I will remove that. In fact, I'm sure she didn't work at Bletchley Park; she worked at the Foreign Office in London, and the exact nature of her connection with the work at Bletchley Park is not clear from your sources ("there was an attachment to Bletchley Park" is what one says). Dionysodorus (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably in London, that is: if she had worked at Bletchley Park, I imagine the sources would say so explicitly. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel William Careless

Hi,

I moved the article you recently moved from "William Careless (Carlos)" to "William Carlos", once again, this time to "William Careless". I did this for a number of reasons. The name Careless was his original name, it was his family name and connects him to other members of his family including a Marian Protestant martyr (who is in Foxe's Book of Martyrs), the family largely, even from the time of his adoptive grandson, Charles, reverted to Careless from Carlos. The Carelesses were, and are, a family particular to the English West Midlands and renaming the article would remove this obvious link, if readers are searching for the name online. Also, throughout the text of the article he his referred to as "Careless". Regards, Urselius (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Urselius, your above post, which is quite sensible, suggests "Careless", but you seem to have actually moved it to "Carleless". I assume this is a typo (and not another genuine spelling variant?), so I'm moving it to "Careless" according to your above rationale. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Urselius, I'm finding I can't actually mechanically do that, and the thing is telling me to take it to WP:RM. Since you did the original move with the typo, would you mind taking it to RM yourself, so that it doesn't look like there's a dispute in question? That is, assuming it is a typo. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Neville Marriner

On 5 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Neville Marriner, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T♦C 17:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible CoI of person who reverted your Theobalds Park edit?

Hello. I noticed that you - rightly - reverted the title of that article back to its widely known name, but User:Phecommerce changed it back to include the De Vere branding. This editor, interestingly, has a contribution history that seems to consist almost exclusively, on editing/renaming of articles on hotels owned by de Vere. No consensus was obtained for their renaming/redirecting. I've pointed this out on his/her talk page and suggest they look at WP:COI. I'd suggest you rename it back. If that user again reverts it I'll ask for their edits and their account to be reviewed by an administrator. Straw Cat (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing it out Straw Cat! I entirely agree with you. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2018(UTC)

Thanks for reverting the article/cancelling the redirect. Please could you explain how one does this, as there are quite a few other articles about long-established hotels which this user has redirected to a brand name, which I would like to change back (at least until there is a consensus the new name should apply). Straw Cat (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just move the article, just as if you were moving it for the first time, using the move tool (under 'More' next to the search bar, on the screen). The instructions for doing this are at HELP:MOVE. Occasionally this doesn't work for technical reasons (for instance, De Vere Horwood Estate won't go), in which case one has to take it to WP:RM. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Straw Cat (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

closing merges

Hi Dionysodorus, re Restore Britain, honestly idk whether this is common practice but after closing a merge discussion you can replace the merge tag with {{Being merged}} on the article. Thanks for doing those closes btw Kowal2701 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right: thanks for doing that! I was following the general closing instructions at WP:CLOSE and forgot about the additional instructions at WP:MERGECLOSE. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks again Kowal2701 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closure

Your RfC closure is problematic.[1] There were 8 (not 9) votes in support of removal of the information from the lead while there were 6 who opposed the removal. See the comment from EarthDude, it is more detailed than all those who opposed the sentence on lead. He also provided lots of sources to establish the common nature of the information. Can you cite which argument could exactly work against it? At best, you were supposed to close it as "no consensus" or "consensus to keep in body and lead". Alternatively, you could let an admin handle it given the controversial nature of the topic. Orientls (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were nine: Ricky Courtney, Asamboi, CXZoom, NASA B1058, Woodroar, Charles Stewart, S0091, NickCT, and RigorousMortal. It was argued by some of these participants that it would place undue weight on the cost to place it in the lead of an article, especially since the article is a biography intended to cover the subject's whole career rather than this individual expedition. It is especially important to write a BLP in a balanced way, which means that we should be especially cautious about giving undue prominence to controversies in the lead: see WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPLEAD. EarthDude's sources show that the cost is notable and should be mentioned in the article, but not that it should be mentioned in the lead.

Since the majority of participants were in favour of including the information in the body of the article only, and since this view also seemed to me to be justified by appropriate arguments, it was correct to close the article in accordance with that view, following the guidance at WP:NHC.

There is no rule that RfCs have to be closed by an admin; they can be closed by any uninvolved editor. See the lead in WP:CR, and also WP:NAC. Dionysodorus (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to justify your closure based on the arguments you read on the RfC, not your own opinion about the RfC. Nobody mentioned "WP:BLPBALANCE". Only WP:BLPLEAD was mentioned once and was rebutted very well. Sources from EarthDude showed that the information is more than significant part of the subject's life that it warrants inclusion on lead. By claiming that "EarthDude's sources show that the cost is notable and should be mentioned in the article, but not that it should be mentioned in the lead" you are trying to falsely imply that this article sticks to higher standard of sourcing than the articles in general. You are making no sense here. It would make more sense for you to undo the RfC close and cast your own vote.

RIP B1058 made no vote. There was nothing "controversial" about the information. You are simply making it up without citing even a single comment that offered rebuttal against the validity of the information. You are solely relying on WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the sense that if enough editors are opposing sourced information then it needs to be removed. I could have voted too but I saw no need because there was no argument in favor of removing the sourced information. Even if there were 10 more similar opposes towards inclusion of the information on lead, you were supposed to ignore such comments because they are not policy based. Can you cite a single policy based objection? Orientls (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments that I mentioned above are policy based, and were made in the course of the discussion by RickyCourtney, Asamboi, Woodroar, and RigorousMortal. In my judgement, the arguments presented by the majority in favour of including the information in the body only were stronger than the arguments presented by the minority in favour of including the information in the lead: I do not think it is at all the case that the arguments of the majority were not policy based and should therefore be ignored. Therefore, closing the RfC in the way that I did was the most reasonable close under WP:NHC.

I'm not relying on WP:IDONTLIKEIT; I'm an uninvolved editor, and my close is purely based on my assessment of the arguments made. I really have no interest in South Asia, and have no views of my own to promote, other than that we should uphold Wikipedia policies around neutrality, due weight and so forth. I am well aware that South Asia is a contentious topic (as in the notice that you have posted below): this is all the more reason why it is important that the judgement of uninvolved editors in closing RfCs should be respected. Dionysodorus (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raised issues with this RfC closure on WP:AN. You can check here. Orientls (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Orientls (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of RfC: Titles for subarticles of presidencies

After noticing an RM discussion about a Trump-related topic (and apparently without reading it very carefully), I did some analysis and noticed that nearly all articles (perhaps roughly 80% or more) with "administration" titles for other presidents with unambiguous surnames use the full name of the president, so I submitted an RM to rename the remaining few to fit the dominant pattern. It was rapidly pointed out that you had just closed an RfC pointing in the other direction. After a look at that, I noticed that your conclusion seemed to be based on only a tiny majority of relevant comments ("four out of seven" as you put it). I also notice that the RfC was using only Trump-related examples. I suspect there was a lack of awareness of the existing consistency for non-Trump titles. I also see there was a relatively low level of participation and an entanglement with other issues in that discussion. I wonder if you would consider reopening and relisting the RfC to further consider the matter of whether to include the given name of the president. The Trump articles seem very inconsistent, but in my opinion, the non-Trump articles show a clearly established pattern going back at least as far as Truman and possibly further. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, and I agree that this is a valid consideration that nobody raised in the course of the discussion.

However, I'm not sure whether reopening the discussion, which I think is well reflected in my close, would be helpful. This RfC, with its six different options, was convoluted from the very start, and was difficult to close as it is; if a new consideration were added to the discussion at this late stage, I think it would make the discussion even harder for anyone to close meaningfully, because I think a closer would find it difficult to assess whether there was consensus for accepting your argument or not. Also, I think it is useful to have it settled that the format should be "Name administration" (or maybe sometimes "Name presidency"), and never "administration/presidency of Name" or "Name's administration/presidency". So I think reopening the RfC would just create a very muddy discussion, and isn't the best way of discussing the issue.

If you think that it is genuinely important to reverse the outcome of the RfC, I would suggest opening another RfC on the same page, but this time just on the single issue of including or excluding forenames, and without any of the other variables muddying the waters. Then it would quickly become clear whether there was any agreement that the point you make ought to prevail over the preceding discussion. But I think there's no chance that simply reopening the six-option RfC would give us that kind of clarity.

Alternatively, it might be best just to let the RfC stand and to move the articles in accordance with it. I myself have no opinion on the issue; I'm just an uninvolved closer. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding and for the further explanation you added in that RM discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Closer's Barnstar
		A very thoughtful high-quality close for the Los Angeles Angels; among the best I've seen with an eye for functionality and helping the community move forward amidst a divided protracted dispute. Thank you. Left guide (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar, Left guide! That is very kind. Dionysodorus (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I'm very sorry for adding a section about Argos from Predasaurs, to the Argos disambiguation page. I didn't know things need to have a page to be in a disambiguation page. I'm also sorry for not reading the do's and dont's of disambiguation pages. If I read it, I wouldn't have added the section to the disambiguation Predasaursfan54 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Predasaursfan54: Welcome to Wikipedia! There's no need to apologise, but there are certain rules and conventions that we all have to follow when editing Wikipedia, in order to make it as useful and informative as possible for everyone. If you don't follow these conventions, more experienced editors may need to change your edits back to how things were before. If you're interested in editing Wikipedia, you might like to start with the tutorials at Help:Introduction, which will explain to you what Wikipedia editing is all about. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir George Ogilvy, 1st Baronet moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Sir George Ogilvy, 1st Baronet. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Significa liberdade: Notability is established by the fact that the subject has an article in the Dictionary of National Biography, per WP:ANYBIO, and the article was constructed entirely in keeping with the instructions at WP:WPDNB. There is therefore no basis for draftifying the article, as far as I can see: or, at least, not on the grounds that the subject's notability is unclear. Could you please move this back to article space? Dionysodorus (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say: I was hoping to make a contribution to WP:WPDNB by doing some more of this, by adapting further "missing articles" from the DNB. But if articles adapted from the DNB are going to get moved to draftspace for this kind of reason, the whole modus operandi recommended at WP:WPDNB becomes totally impracticable. (After all, the whole point of that WikiProject is to create basic articles based on public domain material, which can then be expanded as editors in future see fit.) So surely it cannot be justified to send such articles to draftspace, unless there are other problems with them of course. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for sharing this as I was unaware of the guidelines regarding DNB. I have moved the article back into mainspace. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Significa liberdade! Dionysodorus (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for citations on Joseph O'Leary (journalist)

I’ve added an {{Unreferenced}} tag to Joseph O'Leary (journalist) because it currently has no citations to support its content. Please consider adding reliable sources per WP:V to improve the article. Thanks! Editor1769 08:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Editor1769, and thanks for this. This tag doesn't apply to this article, because it's adapted wholesale from a single public domain source, the DNB, and attribution is provided at the bottom of the article in accordance with the instructions at WP:WPDNB: possibly you may wish to look at that, so that you are aware of this in future. Also, talk page comments are conventionally added at the bottom of user pages rather than at the top. Dionysodorus (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi Dionysodorus, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]