Talk:Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay

message: :Taken from the old Cleanup entry…Archived by HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 15:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Cleanup Archive

message: I have just completed the B class checklist and feel that the article could be improved slightly. There are a few in line citations that could be consolidated using the namedrefs system. Many of them have been done, but I think there are still twelve that could be consolidated (4 & 5, 37 & 38, 41 & 42, 112 & 113, 118 & 119, 150 & 151). I might have missed a couple, though. Other than that it seems great. Maybe also include in the in line citations the year (e.g. Rupert 2008, p. 8.) making sure to include the full stop. This is, however, a personal preference and I don't think it should affect a GA nomination. I'd do the GA nom myself, but the process confuses me. Great work. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much for reviewing.  I've consolidate those refs (thanks for pointing them out), and I looked through for other duplicates, but I don't see any.  As for the year with the notes, I tend to only use the year when an author wrote multiple pieces; otherwise it doesn't seem necessary. Cool3 (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the references to Times articles could be replaced by the original London Gazette article, which are freely available as pdfs http://www.london-gazette.co.uk whereas access to The Times requires subscription, and/or a visit to a public library.  Also, whilst it makes sense to generally reference a book by author and page umber, and give fulld etails fo the book in a aseparate seciton, it seems rather user-unfreindly to do the same thing with articles and so on wehre there isn't normally the issue of having to refer to a specific page, easier just to give the full detils in the reference, rather than forcing a reader to then scroll through a whole separate set of articles to tie it back to the one that's meant (this seems to be a more typical way of hadnling references within Wikipedia as well).  David Underdown (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the suggestion about the London Gazette, that's not a bad idea, but the Times articles work perfectly well.  If you feel called to convert references to the Gazette, then feel free, but otherwise I think it's fine to reference The Times.  As for the referencing style, I've just the article names in order to maintain consistency.  It allows the references to be placed into multiple columns (thus taking up less screen space), and it's a reasonably common practice elsewhere.  Another advantage (at least in my opinion) is that it presents a single and uninterrupted list of all references used, so that you don't have to look through each note to find them all.  If other support a change though, I wouldn't particularly object. Cool3 (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that using the full details in the main reference stops the use of multiple columns.  This way, not only does a reader have to scroll through more to get the full details fo all the references, but the editor has to edit in two entirely different places every time a new ref is added, rather than only having to do that when adding a book for the first time, and other references need only e added where they are actually used.  This way of doing things seems to me to make it harder to maintain the article.  Of course The Times is a perfectly good reference, but it's not the very best in this instance, the London Gazette is the journal of record, it's the publication there which to a large extent makes a promotion have effect, or an honour to be legally recognised.  David Underdown (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements

message: Jock Colville, Churchill's private secretary, wrote that Ismay had the "tact, patience, and skill in promoting compromise" needed to keep the war running smoothly." I didn't add any quote marks to the previous sentence; all three are in the original. Which of the three begins the quotation, and which of the three ends it? Ideally, it should be corrected by someone with access to this reference:  Art LaPella (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra quote mark

message: Both India and China?
Old Aylesburian (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just some silly vandalism. India was correct.  David Underdown (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthplace

message: Is this intended to be in English or American spelling? At present it is a mixture of the two. It is mostly English but, e.g. "After completing the program", "skeptical" "Companions of Honour, an honor" etc
Secretary of the CID, clerk of the Privy Council, and Secretary to the Cabinet: mix of upper and lower case for titles. - Tim riley (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: There are approximately 70 (!) quotations in the article, chiefly sentence fragments. That's too many. (I'd use the  template if the article were not a FA.) Surely there is a way to paraphrase most of these. Quoting should be done where there is a reason (such as emphasis on exact wording). GregorB (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many quotations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay. 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/20120311044021/http://www.nato.int/history/doc/5-Soviet-Union-s-request-to-join%20NATO/Soviet%20request%20English.pdf to http://www.nato.int/history/doc/5-Soviet-Union-s-request-to-join%20NATO/Soviet%20request%20English.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay. 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/20170315234941/http://archives.nato.int/nato-first-5-years-1949-1954-by-lord-ismay-secretary-general-of-north-atlantic-treaty-organization%3Bisad to http://archives.nato.int/nato-first-5-years-1949-1954-by-lord-ismay-secretary-general-of-north-atlantic-treaty-organization%3Bisad
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article says "Ismay was appointed second in command of the Somaliland Camel Corps, a cavalry unit led by Thomas Cubitt", but the article on Cubitt says he was "Deputy Commissioner and Officer Commanding for the Somaliland Protectorate" and does not mention the Camel Corps, and the article on the Camel Corps does not mention Cubitt. DuncanHill (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camel Corps and Cubitt 

message: Contrary to what this article has claimed since April 2009, Duncan Sandys was Churchill's son-in-Law, not his nephew. I have corrected this howler. It is somewhat concerning that a featured article should include such an obvious mistake for so long. DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duncan Sandys 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion