Talk:H. C. McNeile

message: A small project is on to expand this article into something more suitable for the subject. I plan to add new material and expand or replace some existing material. This may take place over a few weeks or even months and I'd be delighted to hear from anyone who has any useful information of sources that may be of use. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article expansion 

message: I appreciate the edits on the infobox and I am all for getting rid of it.  However in my experience, this sort of edit sparks a lot of controversy and will need a consensus either way to keep or get rid of it.  I don't think it is entirely appropriate for its fate to be determined on it's TFA.  -- CassiantoTalk 10:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for starting the thread on this one Cass. Given the suggestion in the edit summary to show or "show it altogether or remove it altogether", I'd like to suggest the IB is removed altogether and I'd invite comments on the suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. For the record I would opt for getting ridding of it altogether.  Its current job here offers nothing to the accessability of information which can already be found easily within the first few opening lines of the lead section.  It is blot on an otherwise asthetically pleasing landscape and forces the lovely image we have into a restrictive and unpleasing size. The infobox IMO is repetitive, redundant, ugly and offers nothing in the way of encyclopedic value. -- CassiantoTalk 10:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As no-one has rased any objections to this, I will remove the IB for now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: IP, Stop edit warring over this and discuss the point. If you have a source that says anything other than is written in the article, please provide it. If not, stop trying to force your ignorance onto the page. I'm not sure why you reverted last time to say the lieutenants don't lead divisions: McNeile started he war as a captain and rose in rank during the conflict. I await your source, but in the mean time stop edit warring - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, all, can I be of some assistance in working this out/discussing the matter? (I have served in the engineers (albeit the RAE, not the RE), so I might have some knowledge; that said a lot has changed since McNeile's time obviously). From what I can tell by looking at the article history, this sentence appears to be at issue: "He spent time with a number of Royal Engineer units on the Western Front, including 1st Field Squadron, 15th Field Company and 33rd Division." The IP editor appears concerned about "33rd Division" in this context, specifically as to whether this implies the whole division or just its engineer component (e.g. the divisional engineers). Is this correct? One of the edit summaries for one of the reverts says this: "he led the division: that's what the source says". The First World War service section of the article does not seem to elaborate on this aspect of his service, though (the 33rd Division is not mentioned again after that first paragraph and he seems to finish the war in charge of an infantry battalion). As such, could you please clarify what rank McNeile finished up with? From the text, it seems to say that he was a lieutenant colonel until late 1918 and then retired with the rank of major, so IMO it does seem unlikely that he'd have commanded the entire 33rd Division. A divisional commander would generally have been a major general, I believe. So if he was a lieutenant colonel, it's most likely that he didn't command the whole division. So, I think we need to look a little more deeply at the source; in that regard, would you mind reproducing a couple of short lines from the source here? Then we can discuss further. It might be possible that the wording just needs to be tweaked slightly, or there might be some other possible solution. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello AustralianRupert - another suggestion is that if someone has access to U.K. resources about the 33rd Division, it seems that it should be possible to establish a list of division commanders during the First World War (doesn't seem to be online at first glance).  Like you, I believe that McNeile probably served with the division's engineers, perhaps as commander of the divisional engineers rather than the division itself. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm at work at the moment and won't have access to the source until later today. The fault may lie in my edit summary there, but the original line (as above) refers to him leading engineer units, which include... 33rd Division, so it does currently say he led Engineers, rather than a division; I'll grant that a tweak may be advisible to clarify that the 33rd Division wasn't an Engineers division which he commanded, but let me dig out the source first. - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, if the source says that it then clearly means that he commanded the Divisional Engineers (i.e. he was the Commander Royal Engineers or CRE), which would have been a lieutenant-colonel's post. He was promoted temporary lieutenant-colonel in April 1917 according to the London Gazette (he was at this time a substantive captain and acting major). The 3rd Division itself was commanded successively by Hubert Hamilton, Colin Mackenzie, Aylmer Haldane and Cyril Deverell, all of them major-generals as was (and is) normal for divisional commanders. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if I missed something here -- I thought the discussion was about the 33rd Division, not the 3rd Division?  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, but the first part stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP edit warring 

message: There's been some messing about with the name this morning and it's now something of a cumbersome mess. "Herman Cyril McNeile, MC (28 September 1888 – 14 August 1937), commonly known as H. C. McNeile or Cyril McNeile" is both right, wrong and incomplete. I'm not sure he was "commonly known" as H. C. McNeile—and certainly not as commonly known as "Sapper"— and if we're listing all his possible names, then bother Sapper and his chosen form of address "Mac" should be added. The previous version—which was agreed on at bother peer Review and FAC—was "Cyril McNeile, MC (born Herman Cyril McNeile; 28 September 1888 – 14 August 1937)": a more elegant and superior version, in my opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And a version that is never, ever used in biographical articles. He wasn't "born" Herman Cyril McNeile, which implies he changed his name. He was always Herman Cyril McNeile. He merely chose to use his second name or his initials. I don't know how many biographical articles you edit, but this is the standard format. Please review WP:FULLNAME. And yes, Sapper probably should be added in the first sentence, given that's one of his most common names. Incidentally, if he wasn't commonly known as H. C. McNeile, why exactly does the article have this title? WP:COMMONNAME. Maybe it should be moved to Cyril McNeile, which is what his entry in Who's Who (written by himself, of course) calls him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually he was born Herman Cyril McNeile, which is why his books were published under the name HC McNeile if they didn't use the name Sapper. He asked people to call him Cyril, unless they were his friends, who called him Mac. As it stands we're left with that horrible, cumbersome and misleading muddle at the top. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Yes, of course he was born Herman Cyril McNeile. However, writing "Cyril McNeile (born Herman Cyril McNeile)" implies he was born with one name and later changed it, which was not the case. He merely chose not to use his first name; he didn't legally change it or use a pseudonym (other than Sapper) or stage name (see the Brian Jones example in WP:FULLNAME as opposed to the Bill Clinton example as an illustration of what I'm saying, followed by the Slim Pickens example as to the use of bolded alternative names after the dates, and then the John Edwards example as to why you shouldn't do what you're suggesting). As I said, my version is the normal  version per the guideline. I'm not sure why you think this gentleman should be an exception to long-established Wikipedia practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh (for which there was no need, so knock it off). As I've already pointed out to you, the cumbersome and clunky form in which is now stands is misleading. But that's fine: if you wish to make a fetish of the MOS to ensure such inaccuracies abound then it's a sad day for us all. - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, just can't help sighing when you apparently deliberately misinterpret what I write. What, precisely, is inaccurate or misleading about the current form of words? Seems to simply be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part. No fetish, just common sense as far as I'm concerned, and happily common sense backed up by the guidelines, which suggests it's common sense as far as others are concerned too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not misinterpreted anything, and I suggest you please try and lose the somewhat abrasive approach to this. My comment was aimed at this edit, not the current one. I stand by my comment that it left in place something that was less than ideal. No, it's not a case of IDONTLIKEIT, (another minor incivility we could do without), but a comment based on the fact that what remained was misleading. I am not happy to see inaccuracies in the first line of any FA, let alone one I have worked hard on, and it would be better if you just took on board for the future that you erred in what you did, and move on from this now rather needless discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name