Talk:1918 New Year Honours

Can't find the reference

Hi there, this time, I've got the opposite problem. John Robert Sinclair is contained in this list, but I can't find him in any of the references, or in fact in the London Gazette when I search on their website. Would appreciate your help. Schwede66 17:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Schwede66: At this time, the peerages, baronets, privy council and knights bachelor were announced only in The Times as they came from the Prime Minister's office, but did not show up in the London Gazette until later (after the investiture/letters patent passed). If you need a citation for his knighthood, you can use the one from The Times that I put in the article, or use this ref from when he was invested. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Awesome, thanks! And I suppose the last New Year Honours redlink is about to fall, too. That's good work all round. Schwede66 06:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Yup, one more to go! :-) —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Holy Shit.

Holy shit, this page is soooo fucking huge. In fact, it's the biggest page here on Wikipedia (don't believe me? see Special:Longpages), its current size being 1,156,620 BYTES. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!! Zakawer (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I awarded a barnstar for this work. You award expletives. I guess we all make our choices. Schwede66 09:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The longer the page, the worthier of barnstars?. Anetek (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I made this article, which is not really an article but a list. The reason it was awarded a barnstar was because of the sheer amount of work that went into it, which @Schwede66: is very well aware of. Please take a look at the actual sources I had to work with - this article alone probably took one month to do. If you just popped by because you saw it was flagged for its size then you should probably do a bit more research on what Honours lists are and how much work it takes to make them articles, and how important they are to many people, particularly the ones from war time. Personally, I would like more input from the people who regularly work on Honours lists as to how the size of this list should be handled. There are NO annual honours lists that are split into multiple subarticles and no good way to conceivably even split this one, since it is almost entirely all military (vs civil). I already cut this one down via abbreviations (such as Q.A.I.M.N.S.R.) and can cut down via more some abbreviations from ranks but it won't cut it in half. One thing to do would be to remove citations, ie, "for bravery under enemy fire," but I would be against that. We always keep citations in Honours lists and it gives clear context. I really doubt the size of this article, which is here for reference purposes, is truly "making it difficult to navigate" - how does that tag make any sense? It's a list sorted under the same format as every other list. It's perfectly easy to navigate. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This is no longer the largest article, as of about a minute ago. The largest article now is List of all National Historic Landmarks. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

cutting down in size

I changed all ranks to abbreviations and removed citations for the VC (a real shame, but they all have articles and the citations should be on there) but as I said above it only removed about 100k. I removed the "too long" tag as that really is only for articles, and it just doesn't apply with its comments about how the article is too long to read and navigate and how it should be divided into subsections. I'm open to ideas on dividing the article if someone can come up with a logical one but I really don't see the point, since no other Honours lists are divided, and only one other that I know of is really big and it's another from WWI. I doubt it's a commonly edited article, you can easily find what you're looking for, and I don't see how it's any kind of load on Wikipedia's servers. Yes it's slow if you try to edit the entire article but there is no need to do that - just edit a particular section. (If you didn't install the option to edit just intros to articles, then get it under Preferences.) —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the tag. At 1,062,936 bytes, this page is too long; should be sub-divided. Being a list doesn't make it any easier for people to edit, nor indeed load, and the requirement to split it for length is no reflection on the good work done to compile it. There are a number of ways it can be subdivided, from a simple mid-point split into "part 1" and "part 2", to a more nuanced "Military Division" vs. "Civil Division" divide. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

My browser (Firefox) at times struggles with the page size, too. I'm not sure that cutting out civil divisions will result in a military division article of much reduced size at all. So maybe creating two parts is the way to go. Maybe 1.17 Military Cross (MC) is a good point for dividing it; this could be the start of the second part. Schwede66 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Split largest sections of article into their own pages - I absolutely agree that this page takes a long time to load. The very largest sections should be split into new articles until this article is closer to 100 kB. This is, in fact, one of the realities of a page being large in size, such as List of tambon in Thailand (N–O). --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe that it should be divied into (A-G) then (H-N) then (O-U) and then lastly (W-Z), and even those articles may be tens of Kilobytes long.--JJBers (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The size of the file to the megabits per second needed to load it

Reply - I tried to remove sections with no references, but I was just recently reverted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Jax 0677, you told me and several other users on your talk page you would stop blanking sections on articles you've overtagged. That's why you were reverted. Yes, the article should be split if it's even deemed particularly notable as a list as it's very long, but it's already under-referenced. You were weirdly selective about which sections you tagged and then blanked. There are plenty of other sections here that don't have sources. Wikimandia said above that a lot of work went into compiling the list, so I thought we should at least give longer than under two months if any additional references can/should/need to be found. Ss112 16:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply - I have stated "stop blanking sections" as a guideline, which can have exceptions from time to time. This article is gigantic, so I felt that we needed to do something. The burden is on the person who adds the material to add the references. That being said, I will go along with WP:BRD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I know the burden is on the editor who added the material; I wasn't disputing that, merely your proposed personal guideline/rule that you would not blank sections. I understand the article is very long, but it should be split and not blanked. Ss112 17:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Splitting it is a foolish idea. It's part of a very large series and there are perfectly good reasons for its size.Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Rathfelder. Sorry it's so long, but it's a LIST. It's not hurting anything by being so long, and is hardly difficult to navigate or edit. The entire article is referenced. All the material on this page is clearly found in the references, and if you bothered to look at them, you would realize why it took me probably one whole month to get into article format. Please tell me exactly which part of the article is not found in the references. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

And yet you don't say what those reasons are, or why you think splitting is "foolish". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

We already have separate MSM list, MM list and MBE list articles, created in July 2017. I propose doing the same for the next-largest sections here, until this article is under 100Kb. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging @Pigsonthewing, Zakawer, Schwede66, Wikimandia, Anetek, ShuffleboardJerk, Ss112, Jax0677, Rathfelder, and JJBers:. Perhaps this is worth taking a look at again. If not, please remove the split tag from article (since its been a few years).A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no deadline; the issue remains to be resolved and the tag should not be removed until there is consensus that it has been. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• "removed citations for the VC (a real shame, but they all have articles and the citations should be on there" - But they don't all have articles. Patrick Dalmahoy McCandlish, for example, was a CBE, VC, DSO, and has no article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Section sizes

The {{Section sizes}} template, above, is dynamic, and will adjust as the page is edited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

"Capt. and Bt. Major"

How are we to interpret this? It reads to me as "Captain and Baronet Major", which doesn't mean anything to me; I haven't found any evidence that the person in question was a baronet; and captain and major are different ranks. What am I looking at here?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)