User talk:Proteus/Archive 5

Assistance Required

Dear Proteus,

Having accepted the need to put "The Right Honourable" or "The Most Honourable" etc before the names of peers I have spent the past few weeks editing literally hundreds of pages in this manner.

However today someone called Snottygobble (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Snottygobble) has been reverting all of my edits.

I would be gratefull if you could be of any assistance in this matter. See my list of edits to find what he has been doing (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Toryboy)

Thankyou User:Toryboy|User talk:Toryboy

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 23:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peerage

It appears an anon has decided that Category:Peerage is too Anglo-centric and that it should be renamed [1]. Your input would be appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested that User:Skyring, just back from his one month ban for stalking me, had reinserted the nonsense about royal styles on the Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. [2]

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

As part of dealing with the new Wikipedia:Duplicated sections list, I've repaired the page duplication on your talk page. Hopefully I didn't screw it up. On a related note, this page is rather large. I'd suggest archiving it. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page moving

Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves if you want to move the Admiral article. -Husnock 18:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you getting nasty? If there are duplicate articles, we should do it by the book. Also take a look at Wikipedia:Civility while you're at it. -Husnock 18:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Drew

I see we've both been reverting User:Michael Drew, who seems intent on mucking around with styles and privy counsellors. He also seems to think that Gladstone was a knight, which of course he wasn't. He doesn't seem willing or interested in talking to us, despite notes on the talk page. I'm beginning to think about an RfC. Mackensen (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ker vs Kerr

Ker is rightful surname. I have done etensive research in the the "Ker" name and yes it appears a Kerr but It's not right, even styles of it being Kerr, Karr, Kar, Carr, & Car are not the true wording, The Lothians & The Roxburghe Borderlanders are Ker's and are Reletives, The Ker family moved around scotland and the surname has been mixed around in the Late 1800's but Ker is the Rightful Surname. My Mainline of Ker Decendentcy is with The Cessford and Duke of Roxburghe. PeterAKer (talk)

styles

Hi Proteus,

I know you were a strong supporter of the original policy of using a style at the start of royal articles. However I think as a policy it is too divisive and too lacking in consensus to be followed. As long as it continues in its current form article will have indefinite edit wars over them. I am proposing a new approach, that all styles of a monarch, pope etc be listed in an infobox in every article. That way they are prominent and factual but without appearing to be endorsed by usage by Wikipedia. Doing that also would mean that we can broaden the usage of styles by including infoboxes on styles of non-royal heads of state like presidents.

I have designed a couple of infoboxes for debate. (The pages are protected so that the idea can be debated, not the context, first of all. If a consensus supports the idea, then issues of layout and content can be discussed and the boxes turned from discussion points to live pages.) There are specific infoboxes for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. We have got to try to achieve some consensus this time. Right now the lack of consensus means that things are a mess with some articles using styles, some articles having none whatsoever. If the infobox solution is agreed, then all articles could have the same standard format. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Styles of James V of Scotland

Presidential styles of Proteus/Archive 5
File:Ie pres.png

Styles of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

Hey, Proteus, sorry to see the message that indicates that you may be pulling back on your activities on Wikipedia. Your skills are needed here. Please don't leave.

Re the above, I've opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution. So far a consensus seems to be developing to replace styles in articles with a style box. Given that you were central to the original decision I'd really like to hear your views. A consensus needs to include both sides of the argument and so your contribution would be most welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive title

Hi, I noticed a number of our articles about royalty/nobility used the phrase "substantive title", but we didn't have an article on it. I did a little research on the Web (alas, my otherwise fairly amazing private library is not long on books about royalty/nobility :-), and whipped up a short article to full the void. As I'm not an expert in this area, I'd be grateful if you could take a gander at it and see if it has any howlers, needs any extra material, etc, etc. Thanks! Noel (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Prince

Also, if you have time and energy, you might want to take a look at Prince - it's a mess. I cleaned it up a bit, but it still has a long way to go. Noel (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prefices

elements cross-posted

You said ""The Rt Hon." and "Dr(.)" aren't meant to be used together anyway)" - really? Didn't know that. Lots of articles combine several preficies (e.g. ISTR "Professor Admiral Sir Foo Bar" or something similar). Are there any general rules?

Also - you're off? Please don't go! Your fantastic copyediting may not feel substantive, but it's massively appreciated, at the very least by me.

James F. (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, we'll await with baited breath your full-scale return, then. :-)

James F. (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria Surname

Please note that this dialog has been moved to a separate discussion page: Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom/Surname. --StanZegel 19:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Queen's Privy Council for Canada

User:gbambino has reverted four times, breaking the 3R rule. I can't revert him back, or I would be breaking the 3R also- could you do it please? I've also removed the same rubbish he put in the Statute of Westminster 1931 Astrotrain 21:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

vote

This might interest you. Since it seems that it is an unimpeded way by which sockpuppets can attack users and any attempt by users to defend themselves on it put them in the dock, I've proposed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamest edit wars ever. Your observations would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Precedence

Thanks for your explanation. I see also that you've removed the boxes from The Queen and from Camilla. Good idea. I got completely confused when looking at them! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 13:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Privy council

Please provide some evidence for your statements. The New Zealand privy council [3], quite clearly is simply called "The Privy Council," as is Canada's [4]. A Google search gives roughly equal results for '"Privy Council" Canada' and '"Privy Council" United Kingdom OR Britain"' with a couple hundred thousand more for New Zealand. The top Google hits for the term "privy Council" are quite a mix, referring to the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and other countries. Moreover, even if it was only Canadians that make the distinction, Wikipedia gets quite a few more hits from Canada than it does from the UK[5].

Moreover every similar institution has a general page, rather than just a redirect to the British one. There is only a British and a Canadian House of Commons, but House of Commons doesn't redirect to House of Commons. We also have a general articles on topics like Shadow Cabinet, Serjeant-at-Arms, Gazette, Leader of the Opposition, Ministerial responsibility, Speaker of the House of Commons, Black Rod, Official opposition. - SimonP 16:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Coat of Arms

What do you think should be the Coat of Arms displayed on the Scotland page? An edit war has been started by User:Mais oui! who wants to use the old arms of the King of Scotland, rather than the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland. See Talk:Scotland. Astrotrain 21:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NB — I am going through and disambiguating. The arms Astrotrain linked to above are no longer located at that page; they are now at Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (for use in Scotland). Doops | talk 03:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Order of Merit

Althought I admit that the wording was the incorrect usage, might I point out that your message was rather rude. Its not that its fundamentally wrong : individuals listed have "received" the Order of Merit. Might I direct you to Wikipedia:Civility so you can learn how to properly write a message.

Furthormore: I am rather agrivated that after I put in hours of work on added articles into this category (I type one handed due to disability) I am rather agrivated that my work no longer apears on the category's history page! - Can I point out that there is a processed involved in renaming and/or deleting a category. Please see wikipedia guidelines for more help Michael Drew 01:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Ashdown

As someone who's not understanding the distinction that you and Silverhorse are making, can you explain on Talk:Paddy Ashdown? --Nlu 23:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You debated whether Côte d'Ivoire should be referred to by its English language name before. A request has been made to move the page to that location. You might wish to cast a vote at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing qualifications

Your edit from List of post-nominal letters read: (remove nursing ones (there's absolutely no way "RN" can be used by a nurse, for a start - it means "Officer in the Royal Navy")). I can assure you that nurses do use the suffix RN in the United Kingdom. Please note the new list of nursing qualifications on the abbove page. 88.111.72.160 20:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. RN is used as registered nurse. I know from experience. My mother was an RN and she was never in the Royal Navy. FearÉIREANN 19:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Welcome back. You might want to keep an eye on Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. User:DreamGuy is assing around again deleting links he does not want to have, or rather ensuring that only his article is linked to the section on the Jack the Ripper rumours. A second article also discusses the topic in the context of royal myths and legends. He has been trying for months to get the other article deleted so that the only article that covers the topic is his own pet one. Every attempt he has made to get things his way has been met with silence by everyone. Even his merge attempt got a grand total of himself participating. Since all his other attempts have failed he now tries to delete any reference to the other article in the Prince Albert Victor page. FearÉIREANN 19:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for sorting out the riddle about the Earl of Worcester's connection to Worcester park. Small issue, great answer. --Slashme 12:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to keep an eye on Constantine II of Greece. Adam Carr for some reason is determined to rewrite it to push his POV without any pretence at NPOV. I am a bit disappointed in Adam. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-using life peerage titles

I guess I don't need to tell you I've added that reference as I'm sure you've already seen it! --JRawle 18:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson

Please explain your edits. The "city, county, country" (or variants) is the pattern of every article I've worked on... RadioKirk 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(a) It's not usual Wikipedia style (I don't know what type of articles you've been working on); (b) it's not the usual way of writing place names in the UK; and (c) it puts pretty irrelevant information in far too prominent a position (where someone was born may be worth mentioning somewhere, but certainly not straight after their name and date of birth, and before any information about who they are or why they are famous). Proteus (Talk) 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have to respectfully disagree; Wikipedia style or otherwise (and even that varies hugely, Manual or otherwise), classic encyclopedia style leads with born date and place (and, when applicable, died date and place) as seen here. RadioKirk 00:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Proteus (Talk) 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these rules." Despite the fact that this really means, "we're making this up as we go," I guess I can live with the new convention. However, I would still argue that viewers may find county, state, borough, country, etc., interesting and that it is encyclopedic. RadioKirk 00:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one's stopping you adding that information — it merely doesn't go at the very beginning. Proteus (Talk) 00:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright... and, thanks for the heads-up. RadioKirk 00:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We = Wikipedia ?

If your going to say we - wikipedia please cite what policy you are refering to. I have never seen a policy on the use of postnominal letters in bio articles and I maintain that the use of academic postnominals for academemics is advisable Michael Drew 20:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The beauty of wikipedia is that practice changes over time. When something is appropriate to a encyclopedia page it should be included. Pearson was Chancellor of Carleton University where he also tought. This makes him an academic. Like I said when I made the edit it wouldn't be appropriate to use academic postnoms on Ben Affleck's page but for Pearson or other academics like (I am using this example just because it comes to mind - I don't actually think his "theories" hold any water)

J. Philippe Rushton, or other academics who have had a profound effect like for example John Kenneth Galbraith it is entirely appropriate.

I dont mean to offend or make wild accusation but it seems like your following me around wikipedia ! Michael Drew 04:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peerage question

I see we have a few articles about peerages like Viscount Whitelaw, which only ever had one holder. Do you think this make sense? Morwen - Talk 18:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. If I spot any more I'll probably just make a category for them and then someone who wants (and knows the subject) can decide whether to shoot them or not. Morwen - Talk 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A vote has been called to rename Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia to Aleksandar Karađorđević. The renamers have at least stopped constant unilateral renaming (at last!). Please come, express your opinion and vote. Slán. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]