User talk:MapReader

AJM's advice to new editors

• Look at the article to see how it is laid out. The Table of Contents is the best place to start.
• Read the article to see if what you want to add or remove is appropriate, necessary, or adds value.
• Search for the right place to put it.
• Check Use the "Show Preview" to make sure that what you have done is appropriate and correct.
• Discuss any change about which you are uncertain, by placing your proposed text, or just a suggestion, on the talk page. Someone who watches the article will usually answer in a day or so. You can monitor this by clicking the watch tag at the top of the page.
• Be aware
  • that an addition inserted between two sentences or paragraphs that are linked in meaning can turn the existent paragraphs into nonsense.
  • that a lengthy addition or the creation of a new sub-section can add inappropriate weight to just one aspect of a topic.

When adding images

• Look to see if the subject of your image is already covered. Don't duplicate subject matter already present. Don't delete a picture just to put in your own, unless your picture is demonstrably better for the purpose. The caption and nearby text will help you decide this.
• Search through the text to find the right place for your image. If you wish it to appear adjacent to a particular body of text, then place it above the text, not at the end of it.
• Look to see how the pictures are formatted. If they are all small thumbnails, do not size your picture at 300 px. The pictures in the article may have been carefully selected to follow a certain visual style e.g. every picture may be horizontal, because of restricted space; every picture might be taken from a certain source, so they all match. Make sure your picture looks appropriate in the context of the article.
• Read the captions of existent pictures, to see how yours should fit in.
• Check the formatting, placement, context and caption before you leave the page by using the Show preview function, and again after saving.
• Discuss If your picture seems to fill a real identifiable need in the article, but doesn't fit well, because of fo,rmatting or some other constraint, then put it on the talk page and discuss, before adding.
• Be aware that adding a picture may substantially change the layout of the article. Your addition may push another picture out of its relevant section or cause some other formatting problem.
• Edit before adding. Some pictures will look much better, or fit an article more appropriately if they are cropped to show the relevant subject.

Amandajm (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Good editing is saying the same thing in fewer words (Ed.)...

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! MapReader, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks so much for your hard work on the 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony article. I was thrilled to see the article was promoted to Good status! Another Believer (Talk) 19:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

	AB Award!
	In appreciation of your contributions to Wikipedia, I hereby present you with the AB Award. By promoting one of these stubs, which I like to think of as seeds, you have improved this wonderful collaborative project. Thank you, and keep up the great work! Another Believer (Talk) 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

It does appear that the warning I put on your talk page was unjustified. Apologies and retractions. Dkendr (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks...

For being understanding. And I have to compliment you as well — you made excellent edit to my shortened version! Always glad to run across another conscientious editor. I hope to see you around Wikipedia more often! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello MapReader: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tenebrae (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48
(Notification per WP:CAN.)

Watford

Thanks for the explanation in your edit summary. It would save confusion to use a proper citation of WT:POLUK#Names of candidates rather than citing BLP for dead people and privacy concerns for publicly disclosed information. Cabayi (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. There is also WP:Commonname, which is the principal point - for the majority of candidates where the entries are direct links to biographical articles and therefore essentially article titles, the first name:last name format is all that is required. MapReader (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Common names of politicians

I think you may be in error in presuming that the Hansard archive index of MPs is a good source for the usual names of politicians. Take, for example, Richard Reader Harris. As shown in his obituary his usual name was "Reader Harris". And look at what happened when he spoke in debate: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1969/jul/15/house-of-commons-redistribution-of-seats#S5CV0787P0_19690715_HOC_73 Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the comment. Hansard is a contemporary source and, particularly in times past when there was less competition, would have been accessible to MPs and subject to challenge if they had recorded a member's name inappropriately. The instance you cite is interesting but is there any evidence that this is other than a very rare mistake? MapReader (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

P.s. Also the moves I am making have been to borderline notable historical politicians, where WP:COMMONNAME and appropriate disambiguation should have been followed when setting up a page name, rather than using one or a string of middle names with no referencing to suggest that these were ever in common use, MapReader (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the one you've been using is not contemporary. This is just a list that Millbanksystems have quickly set up for the minimal front end of their website. They're not particularly interested in accuracy of the name; they are only interested in making sure the links go to the correct individual MP in the cases where a name is shared. So it's a systematic fault in the list that any MP who was actually known by a name other than their first name is wrongly listed under their first name, save in a few very well known cases. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

OK that is very helpful, and definitely something to watch out for. I will double check some of the changes when I get time tomorrow. It does nevertheless appear that quite a few pages have been set up incorrectly on the basis I described above; there are some with long strings of forenames which will not have been how contemporaries referred to them. MapReader (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What is your source for changing John Jones Jenkins to John Jenkins (Carmarthen MP). Could you please explain and produce a source where he is known as John Jenkins?. I accept the desision about switching to the common name but in this case is it justified? Macs15 (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi - are you referring to John Jenkins, 1st Baron Glantawe? I haven't moved his page, which gives his common name as John Jenkins. The only change I have made is to align the links from the Carmarthen Constituency page with the existing title of his biographical page. If you think his biographical page is wrong, you would need to raise this on the talk page, or make a bold move of the page. MapReader (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for pointing this out. Will look at this soon. Macs15 (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi - Why have you changed the heading for Charles George Milnes Gaskell to just Milnes Gaskell? This is his double barrelled and unyphenated surname only? - he was not known as this! His father James Milnes Gaskell was also an MP so it could be confusing. Milnes was not his given name! His grandson was also also Charles Milnes Gaskell, a diplomat.

Common names

Re: this and similar, please do not make the blanket assumption that a person is commonly known by their first rather than their middle name, as it simply isn't true. If you are going to make these changes you need to have checked every name you edit. DuncanHill (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the message. I am certainly not making that general assumption - indeed, on the page I was just editing while you were doing your post, there were three separate examples where the middle name was the appropriate one to use. I am guided by what is on the person's dedicated article or, failing that, by citations. The particular challenge, especially for 19th century politicians, is that someone has created a lot of articles ignoring entirely WP:Commonname and using entire full names as article titles. In few of these is there any evidence that the person was actually referred to in this way; it appears to have been sloppy page creation as a way to avoid normal WP disambiguation. When I am editing on a PC I try and move such pages, but on an iPad this doesn't appear to be possible. MapReader (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit) You are however right that for modern non-notable candidates, an assumption needs to be made to avoid giving full names contrary to WP:BLPprivacy, which is an important protection against WP being used for fraudulent or other illegal purposes. Few of these candidates have any citations to support their names being on the page in the first place, and the lesser of evils is to use the first name cited. Where such people are unlikely to be alive I am leaving the full name as per the consensus reached during the recent discussion about format MapReader (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's sloppy to use the full names in the election results - as this is how they are read out by the returning officer and given in the official notices of the results. I do agree that a lot of articles have unnecessarily long names which don't match the name the people were known by. Anyway, thanks for the reassurance that you are taking good care over these. DuncanHill (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

just tbc my 'sloppy' reference was solely to whoever created articles with three or four forenames as the article title. On your main point, interestingly practice itself is slowly changing - some candidates no longer put their full name on nomination papers (despite it being technically a requirement), not all returning officers read out the full name and, even where it is read out, it is becoming more and more common for published results to use first name only, as for example here. For non-notable candidates first name usage is practice universally adopted by the media, since electoral law allows candidates who are not commonly known by their first name to specify an alternative on the nomination paper, which then appears as "known as..." on the ballot paper and is generally shown in WP with the 'known as' name in brackets after the first name. MapReader (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on some of the old election result, I have been doing a few myself following the long discussion on WP:POLUK, but I'll confess I have been avoiding doing research on some of the "non-obvious" names! I think the problem with the sloppy article titles has come about from people creating articles from a single source (often Who's Who), and beyond that having no knowledge of the subject.

As for the legal position, there was a change in the law sometime between 2005 and 2010. A candidate can now use a common name instead of their full name on the ballot, whereas before they could only use their common name as well as the full name. For example, if Boris Johnson wanted to appear as such on the ballot he would have had to write Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, known as Boris Johnson into the "forenames" box on the nomination form, and this would have been reproduced exactly on the ballot paper and other legal notices (SOPN, declaration of result, etc). Now, there are 4 separate boxes to fill in on the nomination form - Surname, Commonly used surname, Forename, Commonly used forename. Only the commonly used names will be used on the official notices. The practice of (acting) returning officers varies as you say, and has evolved over time. In the past it was common (it still happens occasionally today) for the surname to be read first, then forenames. Some ROs don't read out the description, most give the number of rejected ballots, and some also give the reasons for rejections. In Birmingham it was also (and may still be) common to read out the majority for the winning candidate. This lack of consistency is why we cannot really base our wikipedia election box practice on what returning officers do! Frinton100 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Frinton! Yes, clearly it will suit a candidate's 'man or woman of the people' image to be put up as straightforward "Fred(a) Candidate" without a string of whatever bizarre middle names the parents conjured up at birth appearing on the actual ballot. Being bedbound for a while I have been able to work on a lot of constituency pages, and I do think they look better when all of the superfluous extra names and other nonsense that was littering them is stripped away. There are also some famous candidates, politicians and celebrities, who were being 'disguised' by actual first names and titles that they never used. Commonname is definitely the way to go; even if we had all the RO declarations they wouldn't make the best format for a usable encyclopaedia. Obviously if anyone wants the extra detail it's there on the biographical pages but, as we have both argued from the start, results pages should display simply and clearly the constituency level results, and our simpler format certainly does that with greater clarity and ease. MapReader (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)