Talk:Richard Casey, Baron Casey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Richard Casey, Baron Casey is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage. | ||
[edit] Disambiguation
I had a hard time figuring out what I should do about the disambiguation between this article and my new article, on Judge Richard C. Casey. I haven't read this article, but is it necessary that we name it, "Richard Casey" and "Baron Casey"? If we could change it to "Richard Casey (Baron)", then I could change mine to "Richard Casey (Judge)", and the disambiguation would be clearer. --Hyphen5 11:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please sign your edits
- It is an established convention that life peers are described in this way
- You should call your article Richard C. Casey, and there should be a Richard Casey (disambiguation) page to direct the reader. Adam 11:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry that I forgot to sign. I'm willing to create a disambiguation page, but I've been skimming through the deletions page and I'm a little confused as to whether they customarily delete disambiguation pages with only two links. What do you think? --Hyphen5 11:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with a two name disambig page. Richard Casey should also probably be made into a redirect to Richard Casey (disambiguation). -- Ian ≡ talk 15:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, it's done. Thanks for your help! --Hyphen5 20:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with a two name disambig page. Richard Casey should also probably be made into a redirect to Richard Casey (disambiguation). -- Ian ≡ talk 15:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry that I forgot to sign. I'm willing to create a disambiguation page, but I've been skimming through the deletions page and I'm a little confused as to whether they customarily delete disambiguation pages with only two links. What do you think? --Hyphen5 11:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
If a user is approximately equally likely to be looking for either of these guys when they type [[Richard Casey], then a dab page is good, so they know where they're going. But if one is more famous, or more likely to be searched under that particular term, then the regular link at the top would be preferable, so people looking for the one wouldn't have the extra click to get there. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Succession boxes
Since Casey served as a minister in both the British and Australian governments, is it possible to either separate the succession or make it clear which posts were in which government? Timrollpickering 15:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ac.casey2.jpg
Image:Ac.casey2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
