Talk:Reg Empey

Untitled

A guy I work with who is usually well tuned in on these matters calls Reg a failed draper. Did Reg own a failing business in his earlier life?

Reg Empey's new website

Reg Empey has just had an official website launched, http://www.regempey.com/, could you please add this link to his Wikipedia article? Thank you.

81.86.163.139 01:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 06:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: majority after 26 days discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Reg Empey → Reg Empey, Baron Empey.

Oppose - Known primarily for his career in Northern Ireland and as acting First Minister of Northen Irealnd and his leadership of the UUP and the electoral pact with the Conservatives. Not known for being a peer or by the peerage title, so his widely known by name has not changed one dot since he was ennobled and no disambiguation is required for this article title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. WP:NCPEER is quite clear. This chap is no longer wholly or exclusively known by his pre-peerage nomenclature. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Commnet - The above comments are clearly not the case and this article is the most patent example of the above comments not holding any water.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for all the usual reasons. Is it not possible to make a combined proposal for all of these, instead of making people write separate comments (which are probably all going to be largely identical) on a dozen or so different pages? There are instructions for making combined proposals at WP:RM.--Kotniski (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per Lucy-marie and Kotniski.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose in the strongest possible terms for consistency in naming per policy and guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLE, WP:D and WP:PRECISION that apply to all Wikipedia article titles. The subject is most commonly known by the current title; adding peerage information is additional precision that is completely unnecessary, all good reasons to ignore WP:NCPEER. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

B2C's arguments are bogus, because the policy WP:TITLE explicitly permits topic-specific naming conventions such as WP:NCPEER. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And policy also tells us to ignore guidelines if the encyclopedia is improved by so doing - B2C has argued as to why we should do so in this case. It's your argument (which as far as I can tell consists only of "we have to do this because WP:NCPEER tells us to do this") which is so far worthless. Can you say why you think the longer title improves the encyclopedia? (Note that it's another of those that would look particularly stupid on account of having a colloquial form of the first name combined with the hyperformal form of the title, so that's yet one more reason not to follow the guideline in this case - although the guideline itself also allows for exceptions, so it's not even clear that keeping the shorter title would be against the guideline anyway.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - now known as Lord Empey and likely to take an active part in the House of Lords. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Surely if he is to be known as Lord Empy as you claim then Baron Empy is the wrong title and the title Baron Empy is misleading and not what he is known as.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Politicians who have been ennobled are almost invariably known by their titles thereafter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is just factually incorrect, as explained on one of the other pages where you wrote the same claim.--Kotniski (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - This is not a Crystal Ball and what they are currently known is what we have to take as the current commonly used name. If in the future the individual is known regularly by their ennobled title then that would be grounds to change the article title. To though say, it is expected that the names they are known by will change is not how things work on Wikipeida.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:SirRegEmpery.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SirRegEmpery.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SirRegEmpery.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reg Empey. 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/20110718162954/http://www.thenews.coop/features/Wider%20Co-op%20Movement/1540 to http://www.thenews.coop/features/Wider%20Co-op%20Movement/1540

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)