A fact from Kate Nesbitt appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 December 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
I've just made the following edits.
[1][2] in explanation, first, I dispute that a See also section is not needed, I think that plenty of those links are relevant. Second, in the recent expansion, I removed the WO/MM etc info in the first place, primarily as it seems secondary to the main claim of notability (no source that I saw picks it up), and secondly, it is simply unsourced. I also think a basic explanation of what the MC is awarded for is fine for the article, particularly if it is going to go into depth about the history of it. So, if this is to be included, I consolidated all of this into one new section, but I have tagged the bits that need a citation, as otherwise, they would pretty much be the only unverifiable parts of the article. I hope this makes sense.
MickMacNee (
talk)
21:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Height
Busy day. Regarding this recent change
[3], can I ask why her height is not relevant? Quite apart form the fact you've killed my pending DYK hook, this is basic biographical info imo.
MickMacNee (
talk)
21:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)reply
The only reason this woman has an article is because she received the MC. Unless she has a particularly unusual height, or her physique is relevant to why she is notable, then it is superfluous. I have come across this sort of information only in articles about people such as sportspeople and models, and not about military figures. Today's featured article,
Henry Wells (general) is a good example.
Jhbuk (
talk)
23:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)reply
AFAIK, we don't have any rules about including heights. There is frankly no reason not to include it, it's not like it is total trivia, like the colour of her car, or her favourite meal, it is basic biographical info. Just because you don't think it's relevant, please do not be so bold as to assume this for other readers, especially when RS also note it. This is a biography, just because it only exists because of the MC, is no reason to exclude anything not directly relevant. At the end of the day, references are for verification, they are not Further Reading material to find out what info they noted but has been deemed 'superfluous' here. And finally, how many people are even aware that the RN allows women four inches below average height to join? Don't assume this sort of thing is common knowledge.
MickMacNee (
talk)
23:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't think it is extremely important whether this piece of information is in there or not (which is why I haven't changed it), but the reason I took it out is because I can't see why it would be so vital in this article, but not for featured articles about more prominent military people, or for it not to be given a section on the infobox template. Regarding your last point, that is not really to do with her, that more suggests that the information about height restrictions should be included in a more general article about the RN. Also, regarding the news article, I thought the information was added there more for artistic effect with those around her being so much higher than her, than as a necessary piece of information. It is as always a matter of opinion, but we are all entitled to "be bold" and edit to improve the articles here where we each see fit.
Jhbuk (
talk)
01:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
File:Military Cross.jpg Nominated for Deletion
An image used in this article,
File:Military Cross.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is
non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.