User talk:DBD/Archive 14

Archives

Archive 1 (July 2005 – July 2006)
Archive 2 (August 2006)
Archive 3 (September – October 2006)
Archive 4 (November 2006 – Jan 2007)
Archive 5 (February – April 2007)
Archive 6 (May 2007)
Archive 7 (June – July 2007)
Archive 8 (August – December 2007)
Archive 9 (January – March 2008)
Archive 10 (April – June 2008)
Archive 11 (July – September 2008)
Archive 12 (October – November 2008)
Archive 13 (Dec 2008 – May 2009)
Archive 14 (June 2009 – May 2010)
Archive 15 (June 2010 – January 2011)
Archive 16 (February – July 2011)
Archive 17 (August – November 2011)
Archive 18 (Dec 2011 – January 2012)
Archive 19 (February – March 2012)
Archive 20 (April – July 2012)
Archive 21 (August – October 2012)
Archive 22 (Nov 2012 – March 2013)
Archive 23 (April – July 2013)
Archive 24 (August – November 2013)
Archive 25 (Dec 2013 – April 2014)
Archive 26 (May – October 2014)
Archive 27 (Nov 2014 – May 2015)
Archive 28 (June – October 2015)
Archive 29 (Nov 2015 – April 2016)
Archive 30 (May – November 2016)
Archive 31 (Dec 2016 – July 2017)
Archive 32 (August – October 2017)
Archive 33 (Nov 2017 – July 2018)
Archive 34 (August 2018 – May 2019)
Archive 35 (June – November 2019)
Archive 36 (Dec 2019 – June 2020)
Archive 37 (Sep 2020 – Aug 2021)
Archive 38 (Sep 2021 – June 2022)

June 2009 – May 2010

12th Duke of Devonshire

Please see the dicussion page on the Duke's page. It seems that he has four children according to the UK General Register Office (GRO): www.gro.gov.uk

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 8#Template:British monarchs.

Privy Councillors

We should have some sort of consistent rule for when a Privy Councillor becomes a Privy Councillor. In the past, it has seemed that we were using the date or being sworn or affirmed, but in the latest round you used appointment. Ideally, we would use whatever the Council itself uses, but, short of that, we need one consistent rule that is, preferably noted somewhere in a comment on the relevant lists. I really don't care whether we use the date an order of appointment is recorded or a councillor sworn, but we should pick one. As I don't care, I leave it to you. -Rrius (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The four noted at the 12 June meeting were not sworn, though; the orders noting their appointments were recorded. Their oaths or affirmations will be handled at subsequent meetings. -Rrius (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I would probably read that if I had actually looked at the page and not just the Edit page. Thanks. -Rrius (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand these corrections

Could you please explain this edit? I don't understand why it was "incorrect" using just the article titles. If the article titles are incorrect, the articles should be moved. --Doradus(talk) 14:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the prev version was incorrect, rather I changed the titles to the proper styles (particularly as used by royal.gov.uk) — for instance joint styles like HRH The Earl and Countess of Wessex. Plus, they all bear HMs, HRHs, The Rt Hons etcD B D 15:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, readers can no longer tell the identity of these people from the text on the page. For example, you have "The Princess Royal" which has presumably applied to several people, whereas "Anne, Princess Royal" (which is her WP article title) identifies one specific person. Is there a compromise that could include proper titles and also identify specific individuals? --Doradus (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that using piped links The Princess Royal and The Queenis fine becasue people can find out who they are with either a mouse-over or by clicking the link... What think you?D B D 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true, and I know Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. My own feeling is that links shouldn't be hidden unnecessarily, and that the text of the page should stand on its own, all else being equal. People do sometimes print out these pages and read them offline. I think this particular article is more informative if the links are not hidden behind pipes, but if you think that using the article titles to describe the people in question would harm the quality of the page, I can live with that. --Doradus(talk) 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject The Bill

I'm trying to generate a discussion and stir some fresh interest at the talk page of the Bill's Wikiproject. As a member of the project, I hoped you might have some input, so I hope to see you there. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 17:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Royalty colour

HI. Why would you think lilac a more suitable colour than a royal blue? I think the lilac looks really weak and feminine looking. There is just something wrong with an article about a fierce strapping prince having a lilac infobox for instance...Wouldn't a royal blue be more appropriate? Himalayan 17:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lilac started off life as a pastel version of a royal purple which also happened to be a mix of English red and Scottish blue. If you're hell-bent on changing the colour, bring it up on the talk page and gather opinion. As it is, I have challenged your edit and returned to the status quo pending discussion and positive consensus D B D 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings!

Been a while since we've spoken Good Sir ;) Thought I'd drop you a line and wish you a Merry Christmas!
Paul
Paul Roberton (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello DBD! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current4 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review

A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You are a significant contributor to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming advice needed

Hi DBD, If you have a moment would you look at Katherine Isabella Hervey, Marchioness of Bristol. I am curious after seeing some of your edits should the title of the article be Katherine, Marchioness of Bristol (née Manners; 4 February 1809 – 20 April 1848). If so I will proceed to update some of my articles with similar consistancy. Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Daytrivia (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title.DrKiernan (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of James, Viscount Severn

I have nominated James, Viscount Severn, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James, Viscount Severn. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Leoniceno (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Privy Council

I've posed a question at List of current members of the British Privy Council that I hope you'll weigh in on. -Rrius (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion for List of British monarchs by longevity

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of British monarchs by longevity, has been proposed for a move to another title. If you are interested in the move discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Goustien (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet

The PCO may well not post the order list for weeks, but even expecting that the infoboxes and articles will not be updated until the Court Circular or London Gazette goes up online tomorrow is not realistic. Getting people to wait until there is a good evidence the person has actually taken up their post is about as good as it's going to get. Eventually, we'll just get bowled over by people reacting to rumours, as happened with Chris Huhne. -Rrius (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's not how wikipedia works! It would be an assumption that they're been made PCs — we need citations. We will not know factually whether they are PCs until there is some source saying they have been appointed (preferably from No 10, Gazette or PCO). We will just have to leave notices so that people will understand. D B D 12:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rt Hon

I'm not sure why you singled out the current cabinet, but pretty uniformly around the project, the infobox header is "The Right Honourable". Also, last night the privy counsellors list showed Willetts and 8 others as members, but does not show them now. -Rrius (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skype

You might note that at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to David Willetts, also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you.--Rumping (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]