User talk:Bo.Clive

Welcome...

Hello, Bo.Clive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that no-one has welcomed you yet. So please accept this belated welcome! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

I note that you have been attempting to add the same material to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and each time have been reverted by other editors. Wikipedia has a policy against edit warring, and if you violate it, you may be blocked. I strongly suggest that you discuss the change you wish to make on the article talk pages and stop insisting on adding it to the articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. No-one has explained why that widely published speculation cannot be added to the articles, and some, in their haste to remove it without any explanation as to why, had also confused the issue by scrubbing out other improvements and corrections made by another user as well as by myself. Bo.Clive (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry if any other unrelated improvements and corrections have been lost. Please feel free to replace them. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done. Bo.Clive (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very adept for a new editor! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it wasn't me, it was Surtsicna who unravelled it all. Bo.Clive (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that everyone is now discussing the issue at both article talk pages. That's a good thing. Just remember - and particularly Bo, who is new - that battling in the article is not the right answer, so keep it on the talk pages. Wikipedia is controlled by WP:CONSENSUS, so you may not like the result, but you have to abide by it. If anyone thinks there is no consensus, there are dispute resolution mechanisms available to address the dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried discussion but to no avail, others there rejected the inclusion outright. It looks like this will be another case where the debate didn't conclude on the basis of merit but because of the evident numerical dominance of one group. Bo.Clive (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel like that (although I have felt exactly the same, on a number of occasions, in the past). We all have to deal with this strange editoral concept of "consensus". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bo.Clive, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Bo.Clive! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Tentinator 06:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does conform, as far as I can see, so I reinstated the content. Bo.Clive (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bo.Clive, it's obvious to see that you are editing in good faith here. It seems that you have adopted a very inventive strategy - to start an article about the soon-to-be-vorn heir to the throne, before anyone else can. Unfortunately, although the article is perfectly factual, well laid-out and supported by sources, I strongly suspect that it is very unlikely to survive the next few of weeks. So I fear your hopes may be dashed. By the way, I think the term "Royal baby" has actually been used before. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement, but please tell me more of what you mean. Bo.Clive (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is rather wary of WP:CRYSTAL - we can't really write whole articles about something that hasn't yet happened. Many editors would find an article about an unborn baby, even a Royal one, quite bizarre. Don't be surprised if your article gets a nomination for WP:AFD very soon, or even gets rapidly deleted without one. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am being careful to keep to the verifiable facts, and to avoid speculation. The baby has been conceived and that is notable and widely reported, so a legitimate candidate for a Wikipedia article. Bo.Clive (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article about an unborn baby is not likely to last for very long, is it? How useful will this article be a month from now? Indeed, how useful is it now, apart from as a collection of media guesses and Palace press-releases? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will, of course, evolve - baby's DOB, baby's sex, baby's name, baby's christening, baby's siblings, baby's school, baby's university... Bo.Clive (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it does last until then, you might find you have some competition. "Baby's university" is an interesting concept. The moment of birth is generally the same moment that pre-natal speculation becomes of no interest to anyone, not least the parents. (Were you hoping to get retrospective details of the conception, perhaps?) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bo.Clive! I apologize for misspelling your user name. I don't know why I thought the C was not capitalized. Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) Bo.Clive (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems your article has progressed well beyond "placeholder" status and now looks very good! I am still wholly amazed and still wonder how it will survive when the long awaited day finally arrives. I guess we'll have to do without conception details, alas; and without public domain scan photos. I find it bizarre enough that the media can, these days, manufacture a public celebrity even before it is born. But the fact that Wikipedia seems to be whole-heartedly contributing to this phenomenon, I find even more unsettling. Am quite gobsmacked, in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly how you feel, Martin. I too found the article about an unborn person bizarre, but after giving it some thought, I realized that the subject is undisputably notable already. The article is excellently referenced, and would be created within days (a couple of weeks at most) anyway, so why go through the AfD procedure? The baby would probably be born before AfD closed. Instead, I decided to improve it furthermore. Surtsicna (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wonder how WP:BLP would fit this particular case?! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. All reasons for which are still valid: Crystal Ball, unborn, no reason for WP to hurry. Letme chime in that WP is NOT a tabloid for speculation, which is what all the mentions are speculation. Notability doesn't trump speciulation.(Lihaas (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

DYK for Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

On 1 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that "the world's most famous baby" is expected to be born in July 2013 and generate £260 million worldwide? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge 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/Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to tell you the article is not suitable for deletion anymore ie. it should be kept. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]