User talk:Binky

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

Dori | Talk 08:05, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

There are also some references to Yom Kipur in the wiki, is the spelling wrong?

Webhat 04:30, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

It's definitely not the standard spelling. But we don't need two articles on it <g> - Binky 04:34, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If I'd have known it was there I would have tried to redirect it. Webhat 04:36, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

not to worry, you won't be the only one to try and look up "Yom Kipur". Now they'll find the article! I think I'll make some for lowercase versions as well.- Binky

Regarding Strauss, please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specifically "When to disambiguate".—Eloquence 12:50, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

You're right, "When to disambiguate" certainly needs improvement. - Binky

I do not agree. I think the correct solution, to avoid redundancy and cluttering the namespace, is to redirect to the proper subsection in the list of names. This is not really a case of disambiguation -- this is a search index, which has nothing to do with disambiguation. And we have such an index: the list of names.

Unfortunately the current software does not allow redirecting to anchors. This turned out to be a tricky problem, and until it is solved I won't bother to revert your version, but I will still remove these name lists where I see them. They are not disambiguation.—Eloquence

Nor was it labelled disambiguation, nor is the "List of People whose surnames begin with St" to which it was redirected disambiguation. Perhaps it would be better to conceptualize such pages in terms of "conveying information"; that is, providing a service to the Wikipedia user rather than to the Wikipedia software? -- Binky

I fail to see how redirecting to the correct point in the list is not an acceptable solution from the user's point of view.—Eloquence

I think providing actual information by which the user may choose which of many (for example) Strausses was intended by a link is preferable, and that such a tailored list is more user-friendly than being dumped into a long alphabetical list of names. -- Binky 21:14, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The information content is the same, the context is roughly the same, only the page loading time is different. That, in my view, does not justify 1) cluttering the namespace with name pages (e.g. if there is a company "Strauss", we would have to disambiguate it from the name list, same goes for thousands of other surnames), 2) having to maintain the same information in two places. Furthermore, the list of names is currently being neglected, and having redirects or links from common name pages to it might make it more useful in the long run.—Eloquence 23:28, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess we just disagree about the information content then. The list of names is not, I submit, being neglected because of a lack of links to it, but because it is fundamentally uninteresting - unlike (for example) a discussion about the various Strauss families. -- Binky 00:09, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is no content difference (or at least there shouldn't be) between the pages. But if we can't agree on what to do, we'll have to hold a vote on this matter, as it affects potentially thousands of pages on Wikipedia.—Eloquence

Binky, when you voted "No" on the first poll at WikiProject Peerage, you commented: "no need for exemption from "most common name" rule". However, I humbly suggest that the option may have been unfortunately misread. The "No" option requires that articles on peers use the titles only if there is a need to disambiguate. Under that option, it does not matter whether the name is common or not. For instance, we would have William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Devonshire and William Cavendish, 2nd Duke of Devonshire - not because "Duke of Devonshire" is more common, but because we need to disambiguate between the two. However, your vote indicates one thing and your comments another. Thus, I humbly apply that you change your vote: on the first poll, "yes", and on the second poll, it would be appropriate to keep a "no". -- Lord Emsworth

The first poll asks if the title of an article must include that person's peerage title; my answer is no: it should include the peerage title only if it is the way he is commonly known, or if needed for disambiguation. I oppose tacking the title on simply because he has one. I understand why "WikiProject Peerage would want to do so, but an article so named should be a redirect. The "most common name"" is a wikipedia standard primarily for ease of linking: articles are far more likely to include a reference to Frank Pakenham than to Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford. I also find the simultaneous use of a surname and a title disconcerting: surnames if used for clarity should be parenthetical: for example, William (Cavendish), 2nd Duke of Devonshire. And for absolutely correct disambiguation, the two examples you give require the addition of the dates of creation of the title: William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Devonshire of the 1618 creation is a different person than William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Devonshire of the 1694 creation. -- Binky 23:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the use of parantheses for clarity, most encyclopaedic sources that I have come across do not use such parantheses; they use the last name as normal. Consider, for instance: Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia. Wiki naming conventions also use such an arrangement. -- Lord Emsworth 00:05, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

But it's certainly not correct. Burke's avoids surnames, The Complete Peerage gives them parenthetically. -- Binky 00:09, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, surnames remain unused if the form is "A, Earl of X" (John, Earl of London), but are commonly used if the form is "A B, nth Earl of X" (John Smith, 5th Earl of London). The second usage may not be the individual's name, but it seems to be the way in which he would be generally referred to in several reference works. -- Lord Emsworth 11:40, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

That's equivalent to saying surnames are used if surnames are used. It's clearly true, but it's also clearly a seat-of-the-pants terminological creation, not a person's name. What I object to is your assertion that it's the person's name: it's not, and you shouldn't use that claim to bolster your position on what to call an article about them. It's particularly unpleasant to see people make assumptions about those who vote against them: that they simply know nothing about the peerage, or that they are American and therefore ignorant, juxtaposed with an incorrect assertion about what that correct name is. - Binky 21:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

John Kenney said on my talk page:

"Lord Longford and Lord Chatham are very frequently referred to as such. And the 1618 creation was of an earldom, so that's not a proper example. And it's not tacking on a title simply because the person has one. The title is a part of the person's name, and most people with peerage are commonly known by that title, including Chatham and Longford (Russell's a harder case, since his peerage and surname are the same, but he's frequently referred to as "Lord Russell")."

-- Lord Emsworth 00:28, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

I picked a bad example, but you get the point. And yes, it is just tacking on a title if it's not the way they are known: you're not giving the person's name if you give Firstname Lastname Rank of Placename, you're tacking the title onto their previous name. And the issue is not whether SOMEONE calls them by the title, but how they are known to MOST poeple. For peers with no other accomplishments, this will often be some form of name including their title. For peers with accomplishments in arts, sciences, or letters, this will often be a form of name which does not mention their title. In such instances, their title should not be tacked on to their article's title simply because they have one. The name with the tacked-on peerage should be a redirect. This should not seriously interfere with anything the Wikiproject Peerages is doing. Shorter article names are preferable, and article names that are terms actually used are preferable, because they will more frequently be properly linked. -- Binky 21:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Manuscripts[edit]

Hello, Binky. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Manuscripts, 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) 00:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]