User talk:LegerityFortis

Hello! I'd just like to explain why I've reverted your additions of flags to the infoboxes of the English county articles, as you're probably wondering why. Those infoboxes are about the ceremonial counties, but the source for most of the flags is the Flag Institute, which only registers flags for the historic counties. In many cases the two types of county do not closely align even when they share a name (e.g. Lancashire), so it's best not to imply the flag represents the ceremonial county.

I hope that explains the rationale behind the reversions, but please ask if you'd like me to explain further. Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, @A.D.Hope!

I appreciate your take on this. Just to explain my reasoning. I feel we are both correct in the approach we have taken to this. Which is why I can't fault you at all for reverting my edits. The way Wikipedia handles (or to be more specific does not handle) the differentiation in types of County in the UK throws up complications like this.

In the majority of cases, when the Historic County shares a name with a currently extant county, as is the case for your home county of Lancashire or my home county of Norfolk, there will be no article for the Historic county on its own. Indeed, the page for Historic counties will usually link people to the page for the Ceremonial County, compounding this confusion.

My inference from this is that articles such as the one for Norfolk or Lancashire should probably have infoboxes which highlight the fact that they are both historic and ceremonial counties. Which would obviously make the flag being in the infobox look less anomalous.

I have little time to experiment on such a modification at this juncture. (Especially since it would require a wholesale redesign/replacement of the infobox template.) So simply decided that an article which is the only page and is the redirect for searches for the historic county, should have the flag currently recognised as for that county in the infobox.

Yes, that infobox, and indeed the whole article, should probably be more reflective of the fact there are 2 different types of county involved, but here we are.

Appreciate your time and hope you're well!

Warmest Regards, LegerityFortis (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Anne, Queen of Great Britain while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this message made it to my talk page is because I was in fact logged in when I made the edit, so i'm not sure what you mean there.

Second, would you please explain your reasoning for reverting my edit to Anne, Queen of Great Britain? I'm not sure what you mean by referring to it as "fa promoted" but your edit violates general accepted principles that the most recent/significant role held goes on top. Thanks. LegerityFortis (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You logged in to your account to reinstate an edit you made while logged out. Featured articles are the best on wikipedia. This is an FA and it was this way round on promotion. Comparing to worse articles is not going to work as a rationale. DrKay (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have now falsely accused me of making previous edits on an article when the first edit I made in the last several months was the one you reverted. I am the person who re-instated the section of the infobox you are trying to revert. I see this article as being promoted in 2013. I also see that you have had a lot of involvement in editing this article, so I would question whether this is a personal issue for you, rather than actual best practices for the article.

Please be advised that at the time I edited the infobox in February 2024, the article wrongly implied that Anne was Queen of Great Britain for her entire reign. The FA version from 2013 was missing since an incorrect IP edit made in 2023. I believe the article is correct in showing that she was Queen of Great Britain on top as that is the most recent date. If you disagree please cite where it is agreed that the most recent event/office goes beneath an older one, as this goes against best practices on most every other article on the site.

I consider you to have reinstated an error which was first introduced to the article in May 2009. Previous to this the infobox correctly stated her reign as Queen of Great Britain above hers over England, Scotland, and Ireland. See this version. In May that year the infobox was edited with the dates shown differently. In the process someone edited the article to combine both reigns into one field. See here. This error of combining the two reigns introduced the compounded error of more recent reign being shown beneath the older one.

It was compounded into the almost decade old mistake you seek to reinstate when someone sought to correctly separate the reigns into the format we use today. They made the mistake of simply separating them in the order they were on the previous edit, which was incorrectly with the older reign on top. An error which had only been present in the article for no more than a few days had now been permanently inshrined into the article up to and beyond it being featured. The dates in the infobox were in the wrong order at the time it was featured. I fixed it and placed them in the correct order in February 2024. See this edit. This was the last edit I made to the article. I do not understand why you think I made another prior to the one you just reverted, and would appreciate if you did not falsely accuse me again. LegerityFortis (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite where it is agreed that the most recent event/office goes above an older one. We always put predecessors above successors per the infobox syntax. DrKay (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated in the guidance in Template:Infobox royalty. The guidance as shown on the "succession" field is that the primary substantive title goes in the top position. The primary substantive title in this case would be Queen Anne's more recent/significant role as Queen of Great Britain. A secondary title such as a now-defunct one, as is the case with her role as Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland, would be placed second, as it is not the primary substantive title Queen Anne held in her life.

An example of an article which correctly follows this practice is the article for James VI and I, which places the more recent/significant role as King of England and Ireland above that of his older role as King of Scotland. LegerityFortis (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's not the meaning of primary substantive title. Nor does it say anything about "secondary" titles. Nor does it say anything about "top" positioning. DrKay (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK (since this is an article about a British Monarch), A substantive title is simply the name given to a title owned in right by an individual (as opposed to a group of people). Both of Anne's titles are substantive for that reason. Her role as Queen of Great Britain is the primary substantive title because the former title became extinct and was replaced by the new one.

The template instructions clearly intend for you to place the primary substantive title in the first "succession" field in the infobox. This would place the title of Queen of Great Britain "on top". This is how it is done on every single other article where I have seen this kind of matter be handled.

If you continue to disagree, I ask for you to cite examples or evidence instead of simply demanding that I prove you wrong. Otherwise I shall be reinstating it and asking you to cease reintroducing an error to an article with no evidence why it should be there. LegerityFortis (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you reinstate it, I shall revert. There is no error or anything that requires "correction". DrKay (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your reasoning. You have provided none. I have told you it is an error and provided reasoning, which you disputed incorrectly and then ignored a rebuttal. Simply declaring that you're correct does not make it so. Threatening to participate in an edit war also does not help your case. LegerityFortis (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you a reason. We always put the predecessor first. We always put the date of accession before the date of death. That you choose to ignore the reason is not an argument. Your own argument is unconvincing because it is not backed by any policy, guidance, practice or logic. It is not an error and merely stating that it is without proof or reason is unconvincing to say the least. "Simply declaring that you're correct does not make it so. Threatening to participate in an edit war also does not help your case." Heed your own words. DrKay (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]