# Talk:Henry Allingham

There seems to be a contradiction in the text. The final line of the period covering WW1 says

"Allingham returned to the Home Establishment in February 1919 and was formally discharged to the RAF Reserve on 16 April 1919."
But the first line of the next paragraph (The inter-war period) claims

"Shortly after being discharged Henry Allingham married Dorothy Cater in 1918"
Can somebody who has source material check this out and correct it?  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I've found a reference and corrected the date of their marriage to "shortly after he left the RNAS in 1919" ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Henry married in 1918 though [1] and his marriage is recorded in the marriage indexes in 1918 (search at [2]) SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
As shown by FreeBMD, his spouse's maiden name was Cator as well, not Cater. These are the General Register Office index entries: [3][4]  Here though we get into an interesting debate about verifiability, not truth, and primary versus secondary sources (though of course the real primary source is the actual certificate). David Underdown (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed: the BMD record shows that they married in Romford in March 1918, which suggests that the newspaper article is wrong. The reporter may have simply been reporting what s/he was told by Mr Allingham (and let's face it, given his age he could be forgiven for getting his marriage year slightly wrong) - although I'm very familiar with the Brighton Argus and I know it's regularly criticised for putting out stories with numerous typos, factual errors and internal contradictions, so it's plausible that the article went to print without being sub-edited and the spelling error on his wife's name is the paper's mistake. So do we change her maiden name in the article to "Cator", or keep it as "Cater"?  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
His wife's birth was registered under Cator [5] and a recent report said Henry had a nephew called Ronald Cator [6]. I should also note that Henry Allingham's place of birth has been widely said in the press to be Clapham (and sometimes as Clapton). His birth was registered in a district that covers Clapton but not Clapham. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I'm going to be bold and put his wife's maiden name as "Cator" ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
In Allingham's book, page 84: "Dorothy Cater lived across the River Yarat 10 Anston Road....."
page: 104: "We were married on 21 March 1918 at St Chad's, the parish church in Chadwell Heath, Essex." RichyBoy (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. So now we have a newspaper interview and the subject's own autobiography claiming one spelling, and the freeBMD website claiming another. Looks like this might be a whole can of worms! Given that the Daily Mirror article which SiameseTurtle mentions is fairly recent and tallies with the scan of the marriage register (which is viewable here - click on "View the original", it's near the bottom on the left), my personal inclination is to go with "Cator" - but I concede that this probably constitutes original research and a bit of deductive reasoning rather than hard evidence. Thoughts, anybody...? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I put it in above. Her surname was definitely 'Cator' though: Birth registered under that name, marriage registered under that name. She is also on the 1901 and 1911 censuses under the name 'Cator'. Regarding the book, I'm quite sure it was not written by Allingham himself (by hand anyway, and the same goes for Patch's book). Rather, he would have talked about his life to Dennis Goodwin, who would have done all the typing. Allingham is hardly going to be up for proofreading the whole autobiography. Ronald Cator was the son of Bernard Noah Cator[7][8] - the younger brother of Dorothy. Nowhere is the spelling 'Cater' seen. I realise this is far from ideal, but 'Cator' has been used in ALL reports which include his nephew Ronald. Secondly, there are some reports that say his wife's maiden name was 'Cator'[9]. Thirdly, we've established by now that many things about Allingham have been mis-reported in the past (place of birth and date of marriage). SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I edited my response between you reading it and writing your reply.
I agree, the amount of documentary evidence in favour of "Cator" appears to greatly outweigh the claims to "Cater". Who'd have thought such a minor aspect of the story could cause such a rigmarole?!  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It bothers me that there aren't many pictures in the article, even though there's plenty of (good) text. Since I'm not experienced with the rules concerning copyrights, could anyone make an attempt to get another picture? Some extra pictures it would sure improve the article. A good example would be a picture of Patch, Stone and Allingham on Armistice day.
Some nice examples:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/southerncounties/content/image_galleries/allingham_gallery.shtml?1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7722167.stm
Paulus Gun (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Those images are likely to be copyright and not permitted to be used on Wikipedia per the non-free use policy. – ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
We have one fairly contemporary image of him, I'm not sure how much fruther modern images would actually add.  We have a WWI phot, I suppose one of him while he was at Ford might add something.  Otherwise we could look at images of things and places where he worked/served etc.  David Underdown (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this picture would be valid as it is published under the crown
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/henry-allingham
This also has a picture of all three veterans together from remberance sunday 2008
http://www.royal-navy.org/lib/index.php?title=WWI_veteran_Bill_Stone_dies_aged_108
Again published under crown copyright, but this time they have credited the photographer. However I think it still stands - but I haven't read the rules for years (I was the one that originally got the photo of allingham from MP simon hughes btw) RichyBoy (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Crown copyright is seen as being "free" enough for use here, it would come under fair use, which is unikely to be seen as valid for a living person.  We'll be alright in about 50 years time... David Underdown (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly - see WP:Crowncopy. – ukexpat (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, it's been a few years since I waded through the treacle that is wiki copyright. RichyBoy (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is another possible source of info.--Rockfang (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This Wall Street Journal story might be helpful. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124790790729961813.html ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is confusion about the exact date of death - some editors have put 17 July, others have put 18 July. Unfortunately none of the sources I can find explicitly state which day he died, so I've simply removed instances of 17th and 18th, and just left July.--94.196.27.180 (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've now found reliable source, giving Sat. 18th.--94.196.27.180 (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd still keep an eye on this, as if he died at around 3am it is very quick to get into the printed newspapers (but not, perhaps, online, since no doubt most of the obit material was already written). It was definitely on World Service not long afterwards, and the early morning news bulletins on Radio 4. But it may cast doubt on the publication dates if we want to give the dates of it appearing in printed newspapers. SimonTrew (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone added the category 'Disease-related deaths in England'. Then may I ask of which disease he died? Because I think he simply died of old age.Paulus Gun (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually heard that old age can be a cause of death.Plyjacks (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't make it a disease. Admittedly dying "of old age" or "of natural causes" is a bit vague, but there sometimes is nothing better to put it. SimonTrew (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Natural causes is now present and referenced in the Death section. If he died of something like heart failure due to age-caused degeneration, that counts as disease. WP addict 0 (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the news of Allingham's death, as is common here on WP others have started adding information and references. As a bit of a ref gnome, I have tidied some of these up (and checked them) as they were not added in the prevailing style of the article. I have not, however, "verified" them in the WP sense. I deliberately stood off of doing this while there were frequent edits yesterday (18th) since the chances of edit conflict would have been high, and it is more important to improve the content than the references IMO- the references were generally reachable, just not in the prevailing style.
I've changed cite fields for newspaper=, work= and org= all to publisher=, as otherwise with other combinations of fields they sometimes don't show up, and publisher= and shows up in a different style from newspaper=. While this is not perhaps entirely satisfactory, at least it is consistent. I've no objection to them all being newspaper= but that doesn't seem to show up properly in some cases, not quite sure why (is it when there is an archiveurl? Do we need to use cite news template?)
I've moved Allingham's biography to a new Notes section to save its repetition (in different styles) in the references section. This is not ideal but is what typically is done on other articles. It may be that other editors would prefer to see it named "Bibliography" or even, perhaps, just "Autobiography" (since this section is unlikely to gather any other entries).
I'll probably put (some of) the external links in cite format as well, now. There seems no harm in doing so, and it can add more information and, if anything, makes it easy to hoist into references if it becomes applicable to do so.
I should appreciate any comments. SimonTrew (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The one thing that does need sorting with the refs is the awful date display - a result of the date delinking hoo-hah. I propose to convert the whole lot to British formay day/month/year. Like you, I'm waiting for things to die down a bit. I'd like to get this article to GA standard at least, and then maybe push for FA too. I think Henry deserves it. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed you'd done some edits, and partly that is why I stood off&ndash, as you and I have very similar editing styles of making small, incremental improvements. It always surprises me when an editor coming new to an article adds refs (good) but doesn't bother to make them the same stylee as those already existing: I think before HA's death the article was pretty stable as to its ref style. Whule you may dislike the ISO date style, it is what is recommended in {{cite}}, which is at odds with what is recommended in WP:DATE. I have pointed this out numerous times, with no effect at all – either replies have implied I don't understand the problem, or that something is "not policy", or whatever, which is of little help when actually deciding what to do. I think before changing it we should get expressions of consensus at this talk page. SimonTrew (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Aargh.  Newspaper names should be under "work=" so that they are correctly italicised.  David Underdown (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
As I say I don't really mind which; the problem was that even within newspaper articles etc, different styles were used. I thought best to pick one style, augment the refs as best I could, and then change the cite templates afterwards where appropriate. It seems stupid do me, and is probably just a bug, that some styles e.g. cite news, cite url, simply do not display things like the retrieval date even when it is entered. So one is left in the bind that either one chooses appropriately for the kind of citation, and some information is not displayed, or chooses what is technically a nonstandard style for the reference. Since WP:MOS basically said references in n article should be of a consistent style, I chose the former. I hope you appreciate my good faith here; it is easier for another editor simply to change e.g th {{cite news}} or whatever once the reference is as full as it can be, rather than be unaware even that the extra information has been added because it doesn't show up. I realise, and said so, that this is shall we say an engineering compromise (bodge?) SimonTrew (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:DATE is part of WP:MOS and therefore overrules {{cite}}.  Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes well I am one of those that has been responsible for a great deal of the content in both this article and Harry Patch for that matter. I am always amazed at the froth and lather people work themselves up into over wiki rules and the like, mostly because they are completely unintelligible to an 'amateur' editor, and are frequently contradictory or are changed/altered because the wind is blowing in a different way today. I don't really mind what is used as long as it is consistent, and if possible the references are web archived (a fair chunk of them are as I did that myself, but then the archiver site doesn't seem to work anymore for fresh content, not for me anyway). If there is a proper prevailing style to be used I would quite like to know myself for the purposes of GA. RichyBoy (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for putting the content into those articles. Requiescat in pace, the both. But we still have to make it into wikipedia style. SimonTrew (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
To avoid confusion, by "prevailing style" I meant what was already said and done in the article. It varies in different articles and so I follow what is already done. SimonTrew (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Copied from talk page of user who first made this change. Since, it has now been reinstated by an anymous IP User:142.68.97.135 for which this is their first and only edit (and the summary is just "rv" with no mention of what). I think the anonymous IP should perhaps have looked at the history of the article before making an rv as their first edit. SimonTrew (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

/ (Copied from User Talk:CrazyInSane)
Hi there,
I see you RV'd putting the date back into a link. I don't want to get into an edit war about this. While obviously his DOB is part of his notability (i.e. because of longevity), it is not the sole reason for it: the fact that he was "the last of Kitchener's men" etc is also relevant, even had he not been the oldest; and probably the general public's wide knowledge of him-- even if scant-- would establish notability (via numerous mentions in secondary sources, of course).
In any case, I believe that the templates will do the necessary additions via {{birthdate}} and {{deathdate}} or something? (I don't often edit biographies beyond minor copy edits.) That would seem more satisfactory to me; adding the appropriate reference into that year without making it stick out like a sore thumb in the article itself. It seems to me you are kinda arguing in reverse; you don't particularly want Allingham to have a link to 1896 but to have 1896 to have a link to Allingham.
I reverted this change as part of general subbing to put dates into WP:DATE. As you see from my clearl yedit note on the first revert edit (by saying what the previous edit was and the reason for the revert), I am not trying to sneak this through unnoticed, but I was doing a general change for consistency in dates (and hyphens) and this was one of them. I dithered whether to note it as a revert as part of the summary (or make it a separate edit) but, perhaps wrongly, decided against it– too late now.
It may be better to copy this to the article's talk page and do reply there, but I wanted to explain my reasoning a little more fully to you personally first before cluttering article talk, as it may be something we can easily resolve without involving others (don't want it to turn into a general argument about date linking, just this date specifically).
Best wishes. SimonTrew (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
(Copying to article talk since anoymous IP User:142.68.97.135 reverted the change to reinsert the link. Suggest continue to discuss here rather than settle in user talk.) SimonTrew (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I note, by the way, that his birth is apparently worth noting (at 1896) but his death not (at 2009). This seems to defy logic, since if his notability arises from his longevity, then the date of his death must be at least as notable as that of his birth, and in my mind points out that his year of birth is not worth the link. While I have no problem that 1896 links to Henry Allingham, I don't see how it follows that the reverse need be true. SimonTrew (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There was an article in the Daily Mail today - here - claiming that Allingham's daughter Betty didn't die in the 1980s as her father believed, but is alive today and in her late 80s. Also, Betty (unlike Allingham's younger daughter) did not emigrate to the United States, and still lives in England. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that?  Frank  |  talk  01:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
ISn't the linked article the citation? Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You would think so, but that would be too sensible. Every article has to have its own refs, ans links to other articles that have the refs, however explicitly those links are made ({{main}}}, {{see also}} &c.) don't count. I have it in my user talk it must be referenced on each article. And here was I thinking that wikipedia is not paper...
Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian video First World war veteran: "I will never forget" is no longer available - "This video is no longer available as our copyright period has expired". Can anyone find another source? (I can't help noticing the sad irony - a message to future generations about never forgetting has already been lost, due to copyright issues...) Mdwh (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Following conversation with Mjroots, I hope to be able to take some pictures (possibly video as well) of the funeral procession on Thursday 30th July.  Will then upload these to Commons for use here as desired.  Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

One added; I have another as well (rear view of hearse en route to St Nicholas').  Apologies for the less than ideal quality.  Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Nice to see Rottingdean Windmill in the background <g>. I've been bold and created a cat on Commons for him. Photos added to that cat. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to look again at getting this to GA, then maybe to FA too. According to the previous GA Review there weren't too many problems which caused the failure to gain promotion. Failures were MoS and References, with the reviewer being unsure about reliable sources being used.
So, who's up for a push to get this to GA in the shorter term, and FA in the longer term? Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I will support that. His funeral was today so it may be best to wait a few days? SimonTrew (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated the article. We just need to wait for a reviewer to flag up what needs fixing. Mjroots (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, Mjroots - the achievement of GA status was down to your hard work on the article. Molly Mockford (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think the really hard work is about to begin. Most of the GA work had been done before I even set eyes on the article. it was just a case of clearing a few things up. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings,
Here's an example of why "date links" or at least "year links" mean something, especially for "oldest persons":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8176238.stm

76.17.118.157 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You have missed the point in two ways. First, my argument was not against 1896 linking to Allingham but the other way about. Second, most of us can follow a link and don't have to have it repeated verbatim in a chat.
very best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 

I added a phrase about the buglers (?) at the funeral. It is, amusingly, slightly wrong in a factual way; but this is a classical example of "what I know" vs. "what is citeable" and, trying to be a good wikipedian, I am going with the latter. If I can nail down my uncertainty about what actually happened and find a citeable source for it then please rest assured I will update it. For the time being, it's a small enough matter not to lose sleep over and the way it says it now does at least match the MoD's claim as to what happened. :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, Typical wp quandary.
At the moment the article says (in the "Death and funeral" section) this:
"The funeral was followed by a flypast of five replica First World War aircraft; British and French buglers played the Last Post and Reveille;[61] and a bell was tolled 113 times, once for each year of his life.[16]"
Having done a bit of research (oops) I can now tell you that it ought to say something like this:
"The funeral was followed by a flypast of five replica First World War aircraft; a French marine bugler played Aux Morts then two British Royal Marine buglers played the Last Post and the Naval Reveille;[61] and a bell was tolled 113 times, once for each year of his life.[16]"
The trouble is, this isn't citeable and if you can find a citeable source for it then good luck to you, because I can't. I am quite satisfied that it is correct, but I can't prove it. The current version is based on an MoD press release and accurately reflects that - it's just that the release itself is both slightly wrong and short on detail! 
I do recognize that the Thames will not freeze over if the article remains wrongish, and that there are bigger worries in the world than who exactly played what. It's just slightly annoying that it could be more accurate. What do you think? Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we actually need to name the bugle calls? We don't have an article on "Aux morts", and the artciles on Reveille and Last Post aren't particularly enlightening.  David Underdown (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that naming the bugle calls is worthwhile. DBaK, have you tried searching the major French newspapers websites for that info? Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC
Thanks both of you for those interesting replies. Yes, I think we should name the calls. Obviously I am biased as it's a personal interest, but trying to see past that I reckon that they're an important part of a military(ish) funeral and that it's not unencyclopaedic to want to say what happened in some detail. After all we could also simplify other aspects of this (some planes flew past; a bell was rung) but it's better - I feel - with the detail in. I'm not sure what you, David, think is wrong with those two articles - they're not great but they do explain a little about the tunes and their history: I certainly don't see them as so fantastically bad that it would be wiser not to link to them. (Yes, personal bias again!) Mjroots - no, I haven't. I am not sure where I'd start, French newspapers not being, er, my strong point and French being a weak (putting it mildly) language for me. Any pointers please? Also, to be honest, I don't hold out much hope of finding this degree of detail. The UK newspapers are usually inaccurate enough with things like this, and the French interest in HA would, I imagine, be so much less. But this doesn't mean I won't give it a go! Cheers, DBaK (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
As a former (Boys' Brigade) bugler myself, I have some interest, I was just trying to be a bit of devil's advocate really, if we don't go into so much detail it's easier to reconcile the sources with what actually happened.  The reveille article seems in aprt to be an argument about whether the call normally played at Remmebrance day parades, and I suspect on this occasion, should really be referred to as the rouse.  Maybe we should just say "French and British buglers played several bugle calls including Last Post and Reveille", doesn't absolutely match the source, but in such a way no-one's likely to see it as too much of an issue, but leaves the matter of whether anything else was lpayed, and who played what, more open.  David Underdown (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ha! we could have a wikipedia buglers meetup. Hmmm, or not: bit nerdy? Wrt to Reveille, it's not exactly an argument, though maybe not all that clear. What it says is correct - lots of people think they're getting Reveille but we usually play the Rouse. We don't usually discuss it with people who don't know the Secret Handshake in case we confuse them! If I'm talking to some nice military or clerical bod who seems unlikely to go into Corporal Jones Mode I sometimes quite cautiously say "excuse me sir/ma'am/your Grace is this what you are expecting to hear when I play Reveille?" and then play them the start of the Rouse, and when they nod Yes (they always do) I get a warm glow of somethingorotherness. No, the thing the RM guys played was really, really NOT the Rouse - it was the Navy version of the Reveille, which has nothing to do with any other version of anything and is a quite separate tune, which you can see here: http://www.royalmarinesbands.co.uk/reference/Bugle_Calls/index3.html - it's rather a good one, actually. I'm rarely sure enough of myself on wp to go on like this but that version I gave above, unciteable though it currently is, IS correct. However, the current version in the article may be the closest we can get, and is not so inaccurate as to frighten the horses too badly! Thanks again for the reply, cheers, DBaK (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, where I get confused is that within Boys' Brigade, what we called Reveille, is what's labelled rouse here - I'd forgotten that the RN was different again.  David Underdown (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Major French newspapers would include Le Figaro, Le Monde and France Soir. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - both of you! :) DBaK (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I was also in Boy's Brigade where I learned to play bugle, this is kinda relevant to me, at least. So another vote for saying yes it is relevant to name the calls. It's not as if you are turning the whole article into a discursion on bugle calls, you are mentioning it in passing, (and requiscant in pace), I think it is worth saying. mjroots is always of sound judgment and I agree with him here, add it and let it stand. I could possibly source this through people I knew when I worked with the Army and in the defence industry, but that is probably best taken to my user page just to keep it out of this page for something that is not at all contentious I think and would avoud clutter. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Continued on Simon's talk page as suggested. Cheers, all. DBaK (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
update - tried those three French newspaper websites: no luck, at least not on a simple put-word-in-box search, which is all I'm qualified for! They do all have something on Allingham but not much, and they certainly don't say "and then Sergeant Claude Charbit played Aux Morts on his 1952 Selmer bugle" ... or whatever. Chiz. DBaK (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you tell which  you tried? AFP is usually not too bad but I don't doubt that you tried, I just have a knack of finding it somewhere. It's a chiz, sir (Molesworth). SimonTrew (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Unindent: I tried Le Figaro, Le Monde and France Soir. I am rubbish at web research, but I did a basic search on those papers' sites for, and read, anything with the word Allingham in, and none of it helped. C'est dommage, mais ... A cleverer researcher might well do better! :) Amicalement, DBaK (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently, all the accessdates are in ISO8601 format (2009-08-27). This was originally done so that user prefereces displayed the date according to the user's preference. Since the linking of dates for user preference has been deprecated, this no longer works in the template.
As I have said previously, I dislike the aesthetics of ISO8601, and would like to change the display of the dates to something more pleasing to the eye and easier for some people to understand.

Proposal
To change all dates in references to day/month/year format, e.g. 27 August 2009.
Is there consensus to make this change? Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I agree that it looks a bit of a mess at present, and would be tidier as 27 August 2009 etc. Is there any reason NOT to do this - would it remove any functionality or anything? Does it break some rule?? I am far too incompetent an editor to know stuff like that and it would be my only reason to worry - if there's no issue like that then I'd say, crikey, yep, get on with it! Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Using ISO8601 format used to enable linked dates to be displayed according to an individual users preference. Since that function has been deprecated there is no reason to retain the old format. However, such a change should be discussed before implementation. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As MJRoots well knows, I changed all the dates to {{cite}} recommended format. MJ does not like this, and I don't like it much myself, but followed the guidelines on {{cite}} which go against wp:DATE. Primarily I was trying to make it consistent (it was in all kinds of formats) so someone can, with consensus, change them all at once. I have no objection to them being changed, I hope you appreciate I made the effort to get this far to allow you to make the choice. Thanks to MJ for getting it to GA and I am going carefully not to knock off the GA status (and perhaps we go for FA?) Bes wishes SimonTrew (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that consistency is better than a muddle. I've not boldly changed it all to my preferred format because this is something which ought to be discussed first. I believe that the proposed change won't be a barrier to FA status. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If there are no objections I'll change the date format sometime over the weekend. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 Done Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MJ. SimonTrew (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is time to press towards FA status. Therefore I've listed the article for copyediting as a first step towards that process. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, now I am having an attack of Bugle Guilt(tm). Sorry, meant to deal with this some time ago. I will try to write up the bit I was worried about, hopefully without entirely destroying the rest of the article! :) But yes, good idea Mjroots. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Henry Allingham's service record is now available online. If I'm reading the entries correctly, Allingham served on HMS President and at HMS Daedalus. Great Yarmouth and Dunkirk are also mentioned at top of record, but I can't make out the entry between them. Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No I can't either.  Remember that this is only his service record up to his transfer to the RAF as well.  Looking at the dates given as well, I suspect that to some extent President and Daedalus were where his pay records and so on were maintained, rather than where he was actually physically based. David Underdown (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
His RAF record isn't available online yet. Hopefully that will happen in the future. Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The notice states that the article may require copyediting. Are we planning to place this rather meaningless message on every WP article? If not, I can see no reason to apply it to this article, which I read through thoroughly and which does not, in my opinion, need much copyediting at all. If you plan to reapply the notice, please explain your motive. Dhatfield (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The motive was explained above. As you seem to think that the article doesn't need much copyediting, I will not re-add the notice to the article. It is not the intention to add the notice to every article, but in this case it was intended to bring in fresh eyes before the article is pushed towards FA status. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The information box states that Walter Breuning succeeded him as the world's oldest man. However, it does not point out that Harry Patch would have succeeded him as the oldest man in Great Britain. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is correct, it is for those who are recognised as the world's oldest, not the oldest in their country. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the notability tag applied to this article. IMHO, notability is well established by being the world's oldest man at death and one of the last three British WWI veterans. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.--ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed rather a lot. With the best will in the world I cannot imagine how anyone could have thought it needed that tag. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Near the end of the lead we have (as I write) this: "... and at the time of his death, he was the 12th-verified oldest man of all time." Firstly let me acknowledge my confusion and my hope that someone can put me (and the article) right on this - I've already been on a little self-reversion Loop Of Confusion - but:

This particular record or ranking seems to be in the lead but not the body (but correct me if I'm wrong).
So it's unreferenced, isn't it? (but correct me if I'm wrong)
Can we have a ref please?
And then - and I think this is important - can we please:
Mention it in the body so it's not just in the lead on its own (or even move it to the body alone?)
Change the HTML comment to make it more useful and include which is the correct placing from which it should not be changed? At the moment it's a bit useless because it tells you not to change it, but not what is right, hence the slow-motion free-for-all which it sometimes attracts. And yes, if the "Xth-verified oldest man" bit appears in two places it should have the HTML comment in both otherwise people will just "fix" one.
Finally, on a slightly different angle, "he was the 12th-verified oldest man of all time" seems to me to read a bit awkwardly. (Let's say it's 12th for now - we are already agreed that I am confused!) He was the "12th-oldest", not the "12th-verified" anything, so it seems wrong to hyphenate like that, though I do see the problem. Might something like this help? "he was the verified 12th-oldest man of all time". I know it does something a bit odd to verification, pulling it outside the link, but at least it reads a little better. Alternative suggestions which sort out both problems would be very interesting. Thanks and best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
How about "at the time of his death, it had been verified that he was then the 12th oldest man to have lived", which should be future proof. Mjroots (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Nice one. Maybe still slightly clunky but definitely does the job! Thanks. I don't think it needs "then" because that is covered in "at the time of his death". I am still worried that we don't know whether X=12 or what, and don't have a reference for it. If we're going to try to get this right I think it should include an RS and we should have the correct value of X noted in the HTML comment. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Henry Allingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090205043414/http://blogs.mirror.co.uk:80/science/2008/12/first-world-war-veteran-honour.html to http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/science/2008/12/first-world-war-veteran-honour.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Henry Allingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926214953/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/BritainsOldestWarVeteransMeetServiceChiefsAtTheMinistryOfDefence.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/BritainsOldestWarVeteransMeetServiceChiefsAtTheMinistryOfDefence.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806010955/http://www.raf.mod.uk/ptc/stomerln18.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/ptc/stomerln18.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204033523/http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive.cfm?storyid=72FA6D51-1143-EC82-2E02D1E42DF97199 to http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive.cfm?storyid=72FA6D51-1143-EC82-2E02D1E42DF97199
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815174739/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/NationToCommemoratePassingOfFirstWorldWarGeneration.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/NationToCommemoratePassingOfFirstWorldWarGeneration.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722101318/http://www.st-dunstans.org.uk/ to http://www.st-dunstans.org.uk/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806010955/http://www.raf.mod.uk/ptc/stomerln18.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/ptc/stomerln18.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Henry Allingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rafa.org.uk/news-press.asp?id=130&start=0
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.surreycricket.com/news/110-not-out-henry-allingham-supports-surrey,5598,NS.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501011126/http://www.hackney.gov.uk/hackney-people-henry-allingham.htm to http://www.hackney.gov.uk/hackney-people-henry-allingham.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2006/4/22/210069.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F10%2F16%2Fnpoppy16.xml&sSheet=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F10%2F16%2Fixhome.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100424061816/http://dianaremembered.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/prince-williams-duty-and-sorrow/ to http://dianaremembered.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/prince-williams-duty-and-sorrow/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eastbourne.gov.uk/index.asp?pgid=11672
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.st-dunstans.org.uk/pages/news_item.asp?i_ToolbarID=1&i_PageID=1138
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=460294&in_page_id=1770
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/mediazone/pdfs/news/070215_Oldest_Woman_in_the_UK_dies.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804231305/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/WwiVeteranHenryAllinghamLaidToRestInBrighton.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/WwiVeteranHenryAllinghamLaidToRestInBrighton.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810151509/http://www.hazelwick.w-sussex.sch.uk/podcast/main/Henry_Allingham_1.mp3 to http://www.hazelwick.w-sussex.sch.uk/podcast/main/Henry_Allingham_1.mp3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henry Allingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822155429/http://www.eastbourne.gov.uk/eastbourne/news/2010/may/remember-henry-allingham/ to http://www.eastbourne.gov.uk/eastbourne/news/2010/may/remember-henry-allingham/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I just removed the claim that his daughter Betty was still alive at the time of his death, and that the family had become estranged in the 1970s. When this was added in 2009, the source was a Daily Mail article -- a website that has since been blacklisted. When that source was removed later, the information from it was left standing, without reference. It had been added despite the fact that there was a discussion on this talk page at the time that found that source inappropriate for this type of information, but had remained unchallenged, apparently even when the article got promoted to Good article status a month later.
What remains of the Family life section is still dubious in large parts. For instance, the birth and death years of both daughters ("Betty (1920-2023) and Jean (1923–2001)") don't agree with the sources we use, which say that both died in the 1980s. The Independent article [10] doesn't say that Jean married a WWII veteran. Renerpho (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Renerpho: - feel free to rewrite that section. gutting it if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)