Talk:William "Tiger" Dunlop

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: move lapsed, article merge preferred billinghurst sDrewth 23:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

---

William "Tiger" Dunlop → William "Tiger" Dunlop — Move to provide a more substancial bio of Tiger Dunlop. CJ_WeißSchäfer 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• User:CJ3370/William_Tiger_Dunlop → William Tiger Dunlop

I'd like to make this contribution to Tiger Dunlop's bio.CJ_WeißSchäfer 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This will result in two articles on the same person, one under William Tiger Dunlop and the other under William "Tiger" Dunlop. We do not improve articles by shunting the original off into another title. The way to deal with this is to merge the improvements into the existing article. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem to merge if that is the most appropriate way to accomplish a decent article on Tiger. I am new to wikiland so bear with me and try not to use the royal "we" with me--it's a little high handed; there is more neutral way to say that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job! Dunlop has been deserving of a much more informative presentation of both his interesting life and its impact on the development of southwestern Ontario in proper article form for years now. Thank you for your time and effort. Welcome to Wikipedia! Cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry that you took offense, but it wasn't a "royal" we; it's meaning was that we, as Wikipedia editors or the Wikipedia community, don't do it that way. Now to add being patronising to my crimes: you've done an excellent job with the merge. Have you really only been on Wikipedia for a month? Don't worry about getting things wrong every so often. We (and I mean we) are all still learning, and there's not much you can do that can't be undone if a mistake is made. Enjoy your time on here, and if this article is anything to go by, may you be here a long time! Skinsmoke (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2010 (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.

Current image

I've noticed that the current image that's accompanying the article is marked for deletion on 21 July because of licensing issues. That's too bad really, I always think that any half decent picture at the top of the article really gives the initial presentation an added boost. Trust me, I'm the last person that should directly advise another editor on how to clear up these kinds of image 'problems'; but I know we have lots of editors around here that are quite expert at providing advice on contingencies. If I have some time over the next several days, I'll poke around and perhaps try to locate a good venue in the form of a noticeboard to seek some answers. I wonder how difficult it would be to try to track down a replacement. What we need is a copy of a late 19th century book containing a plate presenting a portrait of him; the copyright would be long since gone. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the deletion tag because the image is no longer orphaned. Any copyright has long since expired so there should be no danger of deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you very much for your help Ukexpat. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good move ukexpat. That was really helpful (no, I'm not being sarcastic). Skinsmoke (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am not a great user of the computer but I thought it may be of interest to someone out there that I own the original oil portrait of the great Tiger Dunlop. It sits on my wall at home and is really rather large, in fact I have no connection with the name Dunlop and it seems rather odd to own the painting when there is probably someone out there that would want it far more than me so if anyone reading this is interested then its up for sale, It is framed in its original gilded picture frame and has the name on a plaque at the bottom of the frame, and it is the exact original to the black and white photo shown on the page for Tiger Dunlop on this website , my email is giles625@tiscali.co.uk , Many Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.125.229 (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)