User talk:Hughbe98

Hughbellamy, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Hughbellamy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

August 2024

Hello Hughbellamy! Your additions to Samuel Morland have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Isochrone (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Royal Commission for Consolidating the Statute Law. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Parke, 1st Baron Wensleydale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Court of Exchequer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Treason Act 1702, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Geo. 1. Stat. 2

Can you look at the above. Its linking to a non existing page.Blethering Scot 19:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeal dates

When you add a date of repeal, presumably you have supporting evidence, so would you add the citation please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - yes I do, I have done lots of edits to the Statute Law Revision Acts which contain citations etc.

I must admit I have not seen citations for repeal dates - I thought a link to the Act that repeals it, which contains the list and the primary source would be enough? Hughbe98 (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please use Preview.

Your edits at Scottish Representative Peers Act 1707 and Diplomatic Privileges Act 1708 badly damaged page readability through broken formatting. Please get in the habit of using Preview to show any errors before submitting. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Burial of Drowned Persons Acts 1808 and 1886, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sources

Please do not remove from an article any source that shows that the article satisfies GNG. If you do that, you will probably get the article deleted. The main purpose of references these days is to show that the article satisfies GNG. There are people on this project who are trying to delete as many articles as possible, who will not accept any claim of notability other than GNG, and who will not attempt to perform anything resembling a BEFORE search. They are so completely out of control that it has become more or less absolutely necessary for every article to contain sources that show the article satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia

When copying content from one article to another like you did at Statutes (Definition of Time) Act 1880, you must attribute the source of the copied content, in this case Time in the United Kingdom. This is to maintain attribution to the original authors of the text you copied. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for suggested ways of doing this. Nthep (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Preview

Again, if you would please get in the habit of using Preview, it would prevent unnecessary cleanup work. Your recent infobox-breaking errors at Petitions of Right Act 1860 and Municipal Offices Act 1710 would have shown up immediately on previewing, as they occur at the top of the page. These big errors are so easy to make through small typos - I definitely make them all the time myself, and Preview usually saves me. Pretty please? I don't mean to nag, we are on the same side here. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out, I will try hard not to do this, and to use preview Hughbe98 (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi saw you corrected one of my edits. Really sorry 😔 have been improving my edit process but the volume is big and this one slipped through the cracks

I’ll continue to be more careful Hughbe98 (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Hughbe98. Thank you for your work on Coroners Act 1887. Another editor, Orange sticker, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Great job!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Orange sticker}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Orange sticker (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to List of acts of the Parliament of England, 1275–1307

Please be careful when trying to target a section at this page, as your redirect targets to sections don't follow the same format as some of your other redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Hughbe98. Thank you for your work on Stamp Duties Management Act 1870. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for writing the article! Have a blessed and wonderful days ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Hughbe98. Thank you for your work on Juries Act (Ireland) 1871. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a good day ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Hughbe98. Thank you for your work on Supplemental Customs Consolidation Act 1855. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! May you have a blessed day on the beginning of this year!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793

This act wasn't retrospective, so please stop adding it to articles about acts passed before 1793. Richard75 (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard - thanks for correcting this.

I had misunderstood the note in Act of Uniformity 1558 - Wikipedia as implying that the act was itself an ex post facto law!

1. The Act of Uniformity was passed in April 1559. However, all acts of Parliament prior to the Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793 (33 Geo. 3. c. 13) were ex post facto laws that came into effect on the first day of the session. The first Parliament of Elizabeth I met three months earlier in January 1558; the year 1559 did not begin until 25 March 1559. Therefore, the Act of Uniformity was officially dated 1558 by the Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 62).

I will conduct a review of past edits to ensure that this is fixed. Appreciate your review 😊 Hughbe98 (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Please note that you're not allowed to go around filing pages in categories that do not exist.

While some years do have their own dedicated year-specific categories under Category:Acts of the Parliament of England by year, they don't all have their own dedicated year-specific categories yet. So if "Acts of the Parliament of England YYYY" exists for the year you want to use, then feel free to use it — but if it doesn't exist, then you must either immediately create the category yourself, or simply use the generic Category:Acts of the Parliament of England instead of the year-specific subcategory if you're not inclined to create it.

Your list of options does not include leaving it sitting on the page as a redlinked category, because pages are not allowed to be left sitting in redlinked categories: you must either create a new year-specific subcategory immediately, or leave the page in the undated parent category. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder again, because I'm continuing to see new redlinked "Acts of the Parliament of England YYYY" categories that you left on pages after being advised not to do that. You are not allowed to leave pages sitting in redlinked categories that do not exist to have pages filed in them — you must either create the category yourself immediately or not use it at all if you can't be bothered to create it, and simply leaving pages "filed" in a redlinked category is not on your list of options.

Since I've already had to advise you of this twice, note that if I have to come back to advise you of this a third time I'll have to report you to WP:ANI for being disruptive. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:1 Elz.

Hello, Hughbe98. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:1 Elz., a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Acts of the Parliament of Ireland 1690

A tag has been placed on Category:Acts of the Parliament of Ireland 1690 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and delete. I meant to create this for England 1690 :( Hughbe98 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Acts of the Parliament of England 1357

A tag has been placed on Category:Acts of the Parliament of England 1357 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 13:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1357 in law

A tag has been placed on Category:1357 in law indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 13:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bankruptcy Act 1869, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Jessel.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Hughbe98. Thank you for your work on Hammersmith Brewery. Another editor, Scope creep, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

There is more references in the internet archive to expand this wee article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 09:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starr and Bent Act 1741 moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Starr and Bent Act 1741. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because Copyvio - statutes.org.uk/site/the-statutes/nineteenth-century/1810-50-george-3/1810-50-george-3-c-10-customs-fraud. 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. Charlie (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an act of parliament from 1741 and is out of copyright. Hughbe98 (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Continuance, etc., of Acts, 1735

Hello, Hughbe98,

Thank you for creating Continuance, etc., of Acts, 1735.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Not notable? WP:GNG requires multiple secondary source that discuss this law/act in depth. The article has only one source, and that appears to be an old primary source. WP policies require secondary sources (historians, academics) that write _about_ the law/act. Without such sources, the article should be deleted & contents moved into some "higher level" article about UK law.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Noleander}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Noleander (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Continuance, etc., of Acts, 1735

Hello Hughbe98, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Continuance, etc., of Acts, 1735, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continuance, etc., of Acts, 1735.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Noleander}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Noleander (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Law Barnstar
		Your work on the more obscure subjects and aspects of the law. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Building Act 1774

Thanks for your recent improvements to this article. From your contributions here and elsewhere, you appear to have a keen interest in acts of Parliament.

However, as a layperson who is not a lawyer, I have great difficulty understanding your new Legacy section: "So much of the act as relates to time for notice of actions for anything done in pursuance of the act, and to treble costs was repealed by section 1 of, and the schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 101)."

Since the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia readers are also not lawyers, could you possible rephrase the sentence up to "treble costs" in terms a layperson could understand? WP:MOS says "Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language." Also, was "treble costs" supposed to be wikilinked?

Many thanks. Masato.harada (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Starr and Bent Act 1741 (June 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Garsh2 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Starr and Bent Act 1741 instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Starr and Bent Act 1741 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Garsh (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Continuance of Laws Act 1780 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Continuance of Laws Act 1780 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/Continuance of Laws Act 1780 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Legend of 14 (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Perpetuation of Various Laws Act 1732

The article Perpetuation of Various Laws Act 1732 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Topic doesn't meet WP:NOTABLE.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Legend of 14 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Continuance of Laws Act 1734

The article Continuance of Laws Act 1734 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article topic is not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Legend of 14 (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Continuance of Laws (No. 2) Act 1734

The article Continuance of Laws (No. 2) Act 1734 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article topic isn't notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Legend of 14 (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Repeal of Obsolete Statutes Act 1856 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Repeal of Obsolete Statutes Act 1856, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Repeal of Obsolete Statutes Act 1856 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Treason Act 1547 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Treason Act 1547, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treason Act 1547 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Criminal Statutes Repeal Act 1827 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Criminal Statutes Repeal Act 1827, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criminal Statutes Repeal Act 1827 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Treason Act 1399 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Treason Act 1399 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/Treason Act 1399 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Legend of 14 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaols Act 1823

Good job. I re-assessed it as a C-Class article. Sorry that took so long. Bearian (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1204 in politics

A tag has been placed on Category:1204 in politics indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1200s in politics

A tag has been placed on Category:1200s in politics indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1253 in politics

A tag has been placed on Category:1253 in politics indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1250s in politics

A tag has been placed on Category:1250s in politics indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Category:1204 in politics

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Category:1204 in politics has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Category:1292 in politics

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Category:1292 in politics has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Category:1366 in politics

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Category:1366 in politics has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Category:1292 in politics

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Category:1292 in politics has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of Deleted Categories

Hello, Hughbe98,

Please stop recreating categories that were deleted in this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 11#Medieval politics. Take guidance for appropriate categories in the category discussion or ask the discussion closer for advice. Pages that have been deleted through a deletion discussion that are recreated and substantially identical to the deleted pages will also be deleted according to WP:CSD G4. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - appreciate you being diligent with this, but these categories are not actually empty? For example the Category:Acts of the Parliament of Ireland 1292 connects to the Category:1292 in politics, if it exists. But of course when I made the category the year in politics category didn't exist, so it appears empty. But if you look at the 1292 acts of Ireland page, you'll see it now belongs to 1292 politics, even though that page doesn't update!! Hughbe98 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Factories Act, 1959 (Commencement No. 5) Order 1961" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Factories Act, 1959 (Commencement No. 5) Order 1961 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/2025 August 9 § Factories Act, 1959 (Commencement No. 5) Order 1961 until a consensus is reached. Landpin (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1510s in the United Kingdom by city

A tag has been placed on Category:1510s in the United Kingdom by city indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1510s in the United Kingdom

A tag has been placed on Category:1510s in the United Kingdom indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1500s in Europe by city

A tag has been placed on Category:1500s in Europe by city indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1500s by city

A tag has been placed on Category:1500s by city indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Acts of the Parliament of England 1624

A tag has been placed on Category:Acts of the Parliament of England 1624 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Just a reminder that you are not allowed to leave content filed in redlinked categories that don't exist to have content filed in them. Either you create the category immediately the moment you want to use it or you don't use it at all, and there is no option for "add the page to a category that doesn't exist and then leave it sitting there as a redlink". I've told you this before, yet I'm still routinely finding content that you've left sitting in redlinked categories — so you need to stop trying to add pages to categories that don't exist, because pages aren't allowed to sit in categories that don't exist.

Also, navigation-box templates do not go on redirects. A redirect is a page that a normal user will never see at all, because a user who either clicks on or searches for a redirected title will just get taken directly to the target page without landing on the redirect, so a navigation box does absolutely nothing on a redirect. Navigation boxes only go on articles, not on titles that are redirecting to other articles. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this are you having trouble understanding? Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, so sorry I missed this... The redlinked categories are a mistake and I apologise for that. I will stop adding navboxes to redirects from now on. Cheers. Hughbe98 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Hughbe98. Thank you for your work on Perpetuation, etc. of Acts 1708. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating this page for an act of the Parliament of Great Britain. It will have a small, but not doubt enthusiastic readership. It is appropriately included in the legislative series. I've also improved its rather sparse entry on Wikidata, an optional extra that should help in the long term.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1758 in London

A tag has been placed on Category:1758 in London indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 13:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1758 by city

A tag has been placed on Category:1758 by city indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 13:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welton

Hello; your edit [1] on Welton, East Riding of Yorkshire produced an efn error for the tag StartOfSession. I can quite work out what the combination should be; could you please have another pass at it and sort it out? Thanks in advance. The joy of all things (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

..and at Calder and Hebble Navigation too? Thank you. The joy of all things (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Have fixed both. Hughbe98 (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; much appreciated - happy editing! The joy of all things (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter error

Hi there, I fixed an infobox issue at Duchy of Cornwall (No. 2) Act 1844. but the page isn't recognizing the parameter "use_new_LEG-UK". Just a heads up. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this - Thanks for all the work you're doing (and I really am trying to be more careful with infoboxes! ) Hughbe98 (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and no worries - you're adding good info, and wikipedia formatting is so unforgiving of typos!

I will say though, a lot of the errors I'm seeing lately are these specific missing end brackets:

|territorial_extent = [[United Kingdom

- just in case that was something you were copying and pasting. Cheers! Jessicapierce (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hackney coach acts, etc.

Don't you think they would be better categorized as Category:Horse driving instead of Category:Carriages? Weren't these acts to license drivers and the practice of cabbing? The category for carriages are for the actual vehicles themselves, not the practice of driving. What do you think?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 13:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hughbe98: Hey! You're still adding these to the category but you haven't responded to me. Please answer.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rochdale Canal

Hi, sorry you've introduced a reference into Rochdale Canal. See the notes section. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, I have fixed Hughbe98 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

I don't know how many times I've told you that you're not allowed to leave content sitting in redlinked categories that don't exist to have pages sitting in them. The last time I addressed this with you, you claimed to understand that and promised to not do it anymore, yet I'm still regularly finding that you've left content sitting in redlinked categories.

It needs to stop. If you want to use a category that does not exist, then either you create it immediately or you do not use it at all, and there are no other alternatives anywhere in between those two things. "Leave the page in the redlink for now and then come back to create it later" is not on your list of options — if the redlink stays on the page long enough to show up on the redlinked category report, then that's a thing that has to be fixed.

As well, if somebody removes a redlinked category and then you want to go back and create it afterward, that is not a "revert their edit" situation — reverting my edit is for if I made an error, not for if you made an error which I handled in the standard manner for handling that error, and then you want to then go back and fix your error. Remember, reverting my edit slaps me across the face with a big red "YOUR EDIT HAS BEEN REVERTED" notification in my notification queue, which I don't deserve since I'm not who made any errors — if you leave a redlinked category on a page, I remove it because redlinked categories can't be on pages, and then you think "Oh, whoops, I guess I'd better create that category now", then you have to readd the category back to the page as a new edit, not as a reversion of my edit, because it's not my L to take or my mistake to learn from. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, sorry that you feel that way. The redlinked categories are accidents, and not deliberate, and not a "I'll come back to this this". I hope you understand that I've been working really hard to categorise and link probably thousands of acts of parliament - mistakes happen. You've been working hard too to keep wiki clean of redlinks.

In the future I'll simply add the correct category back via a manual edit - I reverted your edits because it required fewer clicks, not intended to offend. I created the category 1799 in London right after. I had meant to create it, but didn't.

I'm a bit disappointed in your belligerence here, but, we move on. Hughbe98 (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition Act 2003

Hi there, when you have a moment would you take a look at Extradition Act 2003, please? I fixed an infobox issue - partially - by adding closing brackets to this:

{{efn|name=Section}}

- but that's incomplete, and is causing an error. I didn't know which section you meant to include there. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to gently urge you, again to please use Preview. I've just fixed the third broken infobox on one of your legislation articles today... I know Wikipedia formatting is notoriously unforgiving, but these errors would be very visible, usually right at the top of the page, by doing a quick scan of the page before submitting. Seems like that would help with the redlink category issue mentioned above as well. Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the reference - now reads `name=Section1`.

You are right. I will use preview religiously! Hughbe98 (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both - I appreciate you! Jessicapierce (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]