Contents
- 1 Nomination of Government of the Dutch Republic in exile for deletion
- 2 Nomination for deletion of Template:Principal cities of the Netherlands
- 3 Season's greetings!
- 4 Removal of DC
- 5 The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
- 6 The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
- 7 A Dobos torte for you!
- 8 The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
- 9 Russia coup Turkey
Nomination of Government of the Dutch Republic in exile for deletion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160810093918im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Government of the Dutch Republic in exile is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government of the Dutch Republic in exile until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
Nomination for deletion of Template:Principal cities of the Netherlands
Template:Principal cities of the Netherlands has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Season's greetings!
Removal of DC
Your recent removal of the Doctor of Chiropractic degree from the lede at 'Doctor' here seems inappropriate? You removed DC "because it is only awarded in a few countries", yet you left DPT and PharmD in the lede, which are only found in the US? I would say remove all non-international degrees, or leave them all, but to selectively remove 1 example seems like picking favorites.75.152.109.249 (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I restored th D.C. degree in the lede list. I am perfectly fine with it's removal if all the non-international doctorate degrees are removed. I am also fine with listing every possible doctorate degree from any country, as individuals have historically added their 'pet profession' back into the list anyways and it becomes an endless battle.2001:56A:75B7:9B00:D3:7051:DE4:DD01 (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I thought the removal was appropriate and I have removed this item from the list again. The lead section has a few examples and it will not be helpful to readers if that list becomes exhaustive. There are some other issues specific to the DC degree. For example, in the UK, the professional regulatory body, the General Chiropractic Council advises that chiropractors exercise caution about what title they use when advertising, see here. This was after an ASA judgement in 2013 on a chiropractor who went to the United States and obtained a DC degree. Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I restored th D.C. degree in the lede list. I am perfectly fine with it's removal if all the non-international doctorate degrees are removed. I am also fine with listing every possible doctorate degree from any country, as individuals have historically added their 'pet profession' back into the list anyways and it becomes an endless battle.2001:56A:75B7:9B00:D3:7051:DE4:DD01 (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
A Dobos torte for you!
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Russia coup Turkey
Hi As you said that if both countries did not deny or confirm it happend, that it should be assumed as "not happend" I would like to ask, why it can't stay as the reader can then check the sources and judge for themselves right? Or is that not the intention? Should there be only facts posted in that section? Kind regards, BM Tornado (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Following the same rationale you could add Andorra or Indonesia to the belligerents, as their involvement has neither been confirmed nor denied (nor in fact reported anywhere). We need positive evidence that something has happened, otherwise we should assume it has not. Arnoutf (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- But the supports of Russia were reported in the sources? Or are they too vague (not a positive evidence) for you? Can I ask when a source is best reliable? Like for example does it have to be of an international news agency such as bbc news, or are small sources also allowed, because if that's the case the sources of Russian support were fine I think. But I understand, we may best wait for a confirm or denial of Turkey or Russia about these matters. BM Tornado (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC) BM Tornado (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- It should NOT be based anything by a single uncontrollable source that is not central to the issue (in this case the Iranian secret service). It should be recently confirmed by reliable sources; i.e. after the initial report. At least that is for the infobox (which summarises it all) Arnoutf (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- But the supports of Russia were reported in the sources? Or are they too vague (not a positive evidence) for you? Can I ask when a source is best reliable? Like for example does it have to be of an international news agency such as bbc news, or are small sources also allowed, because if that's the case the sources of Russian support were fine I think. But I understand, we may best wait for a confirm or denial of Turkey or Russia about these matters. BM Tornado (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC) BM Tornado (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)