Talk:Edward Spears

message: His full name should be Sir Edward Louis Spears.  However, I don't how the name of the entry can be changed from the existing Sir Louis Spears.  Comments appreciated. Mikeo1938 (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing article under the name of Louis Spears should be left as it is ... its title should not be changed. The biography of Spears by Max Egremont states that Louis was the name by which he was called. So the page, Major General Sir Edward Spears, should be deleted.Mikeo1938 (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: As I understood you request, I deleted a redirect with trivial edit history at Sir Edward Louis Spears, 1st Baronet at moved the article about the person there. Sir Louis Spears, 1st Baronet is now a simple redirect. You, me or anybody else can undo the page move with the move Tab as long as the remaining redirect isn't modified. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need the fix all the broken redirects and double redirects at Special:Whatlinkshere/Sir Louis Spears, 1st_Baronet. It's a bit of a mess, I'm afraid. Leithp 11:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the question is whether to undo the move or if the new name is indeed correct, rather fix the double redirects (which can also be done by anyone including a bot). As far as I see there are no 'broken' redirects. So the first questions is: what should be the page title?--Tikiwont (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The page currently says "Sir Edward Louis Spears, 1st Baronet" and it should be left as such now.  I have included a note in the article saying that he was known under the name of "Louis".  Hope that you can sort out the muddle. Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The broken (redirecting to self) redirect was fixed by me after leaving that message. I appreciate that fixing the redirects can be done by anyone, but it's normally done by the person doing the move at the time rather than leaving it for someone else to tidy up. Page names do not normally include titles such as "1st Baronet" unless there is a need to disambiguate between people of the same name. Leithp 14:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if this came across as leaving the tidying the others, but the move regarding the title happened in the past and the one above (adding  also the 'Edward') wasn't really mine but on behalf of Mikeo, maybe mistakenly since there was a technical obstacle, but the self redirect wasn't created by me, but by another editor after the move.. My problem with the double redirects is still that there was doubt or if we have place now right. Now I tend to rather undo my own action above, because there doesn't seem to be consensus and he is more known as Louis, so the full name could be the redirect. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I sorry about this dog's breakfast!  I now believe that the article should indeed be entitled, "Sir Edward Louis Spears, 1st Baronet".  This was his full name.  However, I have included a note saying that he was known as "Louis". What do others think? Mikeo1938 (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names item 4, I would suggest either "Edward Louis Spears" or "Louis Spears" as there is no need for disambiguation. Leithp 16:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since he was known by his second name, he present article title is correct. His full name is properly  given in the first line. He was a KBE and a Baronet. Kittybrewster  ☎ 10:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK and VMT for your help.  So I won't alter the title.Mikeo1938 (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Name 

message: I can see that this article is getting too long and will be reducing its length to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. Mikeo1938 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will first finish the article in its entirety - then made a shorter summary, which will be the main entry.  After this, I will split the long article into 2 (or even 3) separate sections: (1) probably to end of WW1 and (2) from end of WW1 to his death.Mikeo1938 (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of article 

message: I've had to stop work on this article for now but will be resuming ASAP. Mikeo1938 (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuation of article 

message: The image :Image:De-gaulle-radio.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      File:Camille Chautemps.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:De-gaulle-radio.jpg

message: It's quite clear from the Wikipedia title guidelines linked to above that the title of this article should be Louis Spears, 1st Baronet, without the "Sir". I'm not going to try to move it because I don't enjoy the arguments that always follow such attempts, but someone should do so. I also think the article is over-written, with too many disgressions and passages that read like a magazine puff-piece. Also many of the images are irrelevant and look like padding. I will see what others say about this before making any changes. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: About the title ... I agree but things got into a mess when I tried to change it in Feb 2008 so I've left it alone. I accept that the article in its present form is too long. However, rather have things cut things out, I favour splitting it.   With the possible exception of the statue to Jan Masaryk, I consider that the images are relevant and enhance the article.  (However, I should say that I inserted most of them) Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think, having consulted a number of indexes in books about the period, that he was most commonly called Edward Spears not Louis Spears, particularly after he was knighted. That should be the title of the article. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Not quite sure where to go from here but how about []?  I am willing to put up a request for help.  However, before doing so can I take it that we agree that the title should be Edward Spears, 1st Baronet? Also, does anyone know of a better location for the request? Mikeo1938 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with Edward Spears, 1st Baronet since, in spite of exceptions, that fits a Wikipedia model. I'm afraid I've no idea where the request should be made. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Re the above from (Talk) ... it seems that we should go for Sir Edward Spears, 1st Baronet.  If we are in agreement, perhaps Proteus would be kind enough to do the necessary redirects etc.  Both Mr Toad and I are reluctant to meddle with such matters.  On the other hand, Ioan Dyfrig may oblige ... (?)  We might wait a week or so just in case there is more input. Mikeo1938 (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on, if Proteus is right (and he has identified the relevant guideline) the title should be just Edward Spears. I am a reed bending in the wind, I know, but the Wiki guideline says no 'Sir' and no Ordinal Baronet, other than to disambiguate which isn't necessary in this case;   and we seem to agree that the public name, Edward, should be used rather than the name used by intimates (which we aren't).  Hence 'Edward Spears'. Meddle with the matter? I wouldn't know how to! Proteus? Though first, are we in agreement?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioan Dyfrig (talk • contribs) 21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, regarding the move of an article and its handling, may I point both of you to Help:Moving a page ... Best wishes ~~ Phoe   talk  ~~  15:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Proteus, for sorting out the move / change of name.  Mikeo1938 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of article

message: The image of Paul Reynaud which originally accompanied the section about Liaison 1914 must have been removed from Commons. Not sure whether there is another image which meets the copyright criteria but will have a look.  Mikeo1938 (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Reynaud (image) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Edward Spears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040107193311/http://www.inter-disciplinary.net:80/Gardner.pdf to http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/Gardner.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081204034842/http://www.francobritishcouncil.org.uk:80/showdetails.php?pub_id=51 to http://www.francobritishcouncil.org.uk/showdetails.php?pub_id=51
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Edward Spears. 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/20080414234838/http://www.cit.gu.edu.au:80/~davidt/z_ww1_slang/index_bak.htm to http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~davidt/z_ww1_slang/index_bak.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611072002/http://multisites.phpnet.org:80/alaurent/biographie/france/clemenceau.htm to http://multisites.phpnet.org/alaurent/biographie/france/clemenceau.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.culture.fr/sections/regions/picardie/organisme/JEP-ORGS21768?typeSearch=bibliotheques&SearchableText=&SearchWhere=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120050627/http://www.londres.esj-lille.fr/spip.php?article62 to http://londres.esj-lille.fr/spip.php?article62
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724073730/http://www.concours-resistance.org/pdf/cnrd_2004_complet.pdf to http://www.concours-resistance.org/pdf/cnrd_2004_complet.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Apologies in advance should this come to the attention of the authors. This article is written in, in many places, a rather purple, adulatory tone lacking any impartiality. Examples include 
"However, when the British failed and took heavy losses, there were hints that they could not stand shell fire. He began to doubt his fellow countrymen – had they lost the vigour and courage of their forebears?"
and 
"He was at a loss to understand why a meeting had not taken place – had Reynaud simply forgotten? Did Reynaud wish to explain the situation to the ministers himself?"
and an entire section headed "Tragedy of his life," which appears to discuss a highly subjective point which seems coincidentally not to contribute anything sufficiently original or valuable enough to deserve its own section. I thought it might have been restricted to a handful of instances, but the tone throughout is exceptionally positive to Spears and frequently contains phrases and styling more appropriate for fiction (see above). Much of the body appears to need some substantial revision to achieve a more encyclopedic and neutral point of view.
WhampoaSamovar (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality