User talk:Rodolph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia.

Just a tip, to create a refferal to another item use #REDIRECT [[<targetarticlename>]] instead of "see <tragetarticlename>".

The above synatx allows the MediaWiki software to refer searches and lookups auto-magicaly:-)

Thanks for the contribution though :-)

ShakespeareFan00 14:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Rodolph, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  JRawle (Talk) 22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

PS do take a look at the pages on writing wiki code, and on style of articles. It isn't necessary to end lines with an HTML <br /> tag!

[edit] George Jellicoe, 2nd Earl Jellicoe

Please do not restore your version of the article again. Additional facts added to articles are most welcome, but do take some time to look at some other articles on Wikipedia and try to write in the usual style of the site. Articles aren't supposed to be list of facts, but should be written as paragraphs. I tried to retain all of the content you had added (with the exception of the list of titles, which belongs on the Earl Jellicoe page) so there is no need to change the article unless you have something to add. JRawle (Talk) 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You have made some good contributions and extended the article quite a bit, but I'm still not happy with the style of parts of the article. We shouldn't try to reproduce DodOnline or a biographical dictionary, so I don't think "Clubs" is a suitable heading. And I still don't quite like the "Honours" section - this could do with some wikilinks and proper formatting (maybe bullets).

I've removed the inherited titles from the honours section as this is not included in other articles and should be discussed in the title article. I'm dubious about some of the others, I'm not sure Earl~ Day constitutes the sort of honour that wiki envisaged with the inclusion of such sections in amongst peerages and military decorations Alci12 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the honours section is to cover honours given to the individual. As I indicated before no other peerage article includes a list of each and ever inherited title, that is in large measure the purpose of the title article to save this repeat. See any of the other similar articles for layout Gerald_Cavendish_Grosvenor John_Spencer-Churchill,_11th_Duke_of_Marlborough Articles are not supposed to exist in a vacuum alone. I have reversed this change. In large measure wiki replies standard forms for articles so we have a manual of style and various project pages to try to ensure we all work in the same way. You may find Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage helpful. Alci12 16:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but he is the holder of those extra and subsiderary titles. They may be hereditary, but they belong with the present holder as much as anything he may have earned himself. The subject may be commonly known only by the highest one, but nonetheless it is a shame, even a travesty to separate them. They should be somewhere on the face of that article, I thought the most innocuous place was where I've put them. Maybe you don't believe in the hereditary principle, in which case I cannot argue, but if you do they should be spared, please.
It's not to do with belief but article structure. We have an article about each title or collection of titles then where they justify inclusion articles about various holders of such titles. Other than where they are known by one of their lesser titles (eg the heir apparent and his heir who may be known for decades by courtesy titles, which must be mentioned) the fact they have 16 others on succession is not the point of their personal article and clutters it up if they have say 9 to mention, but it's absolutely right to cover in full detail in the title article. See this done at Duke_of_Hamilton and Douglas_Douglas-Hamilton,_14th_Duke_of_Hamilton We have a standard article format and it's quite important to try to work with that format, rather than do what ever we personally like, to keep a uniform structure. Do look at other articles to see they broadly conform. Looking at the article in question it does need a titles/styles section per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage see John_Scott,_9th_Duke_of_Buccleuch Alci12 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thanks. I know what you mean. With this case the creations were fresh within the life of the subject, who was known by one of them and in some biogs. (not just Dod) he or others included them all, and he persisted in including Southampton as part of his new life peerage when he had to choose one in 1999. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but may return to it anon...
The Life peerage is fine to mention in both the honours section (see the examples I gave for the standard format of that section in a list) and in the body of the article as it's 'new' to him as an individual. The mention of the courtesy viscountcy in the body of the article is correct as he used it from 25-35 and the Earldom as he is known by it is now obviously there. What's not needed in his personal article is the other viscountcy. If you have questions or suggestions you can always raise them at project peerage where these issues are discussed. We try to work though a logical way to handle formats and problems. Alci12 18:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask what editor you use as I've never seen <br /> tags used before, but I've just noticed that they have extended the interface, and there is a button to add them! This seems crazy to me, as it's very rare that you need to tweak the layout using HTML mark-up. Please use a blank line (and one blank line) only to separate paragraphs. Thanks again for your contributions, JRawle (Talk) 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

good work Rawle! Thanks for your guidance.

[edit] Jerome, 2nd Count de Salis

Please don't remove clean up tags, before the article has been cleaned up. Thanks and greetings ~~ Phoe talk 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Philip Russell Rendel Dunne

Hi, thanks for starting this article, but I think you are violating copyright. We can and shall use sources to write articles, however we may not copy longer text statements or whole texts. I recommend you therefore to rewrite the article since otherwise it can be that it will be deleted (see Wikipedia:Copyright problems). Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 10:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] License tagging for Image:Rodolphe Salis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rodolphe Salis.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

RE. COPYRIGHT ....I HAVE ADDED INFO, IN FORM OF LINKS TO ORIGINAL FRENCH AND GERMAN SITES.

[edit] George III

I answered you on my talk page, here by Snowolf (talk) on 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession boxes

I'd prefer that we not try to add succession boxes for the possession of manors, simply because they'd become way too profuse to keep up with. As someone who spends a lot of time arranging succession boxes, I worry that adding succession boxes for too many things will result in people attacking the whole concept of succession boxes and trying to get them removed, because they dislike having a huge chunk of tables at the end of the article that may overshadow its actual content. Given the vast number of manors in the British Isles (most of which have no articles describing them), I think adding succession boxes for them is excessive. If you'd like to solicit more opinions, Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization is a good place to look. Choess 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. That seems fair, in that I only added my succession boxes (to a four hundred year long descent of a specific place and quite large estate) after finding that many of the 'approved' succession boxes seemed rather questionable or spurious themselves, useful all the same, that's why I added mine, (but I won't re-install them)... best wishes, Rodolph 10:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Fane

Hi, according to the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes we don't use honorifics in the opening of articles, so please stop adding it to George Fane. Thanks ~~ Phoe talk 15:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] WRT Image:Queen's Speech 2001.jpg

If that was taken from the BBC, I strongly suspect that they own the copyright to their broadcast and that the pic is then copyrighted by them regardless. 68.39.174.238 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titles

If you want to be sure about a title check the London Gazette for the date in question and then look at only that part before the comma (bold below) If the intent had been to include an X of Y title the comma would be missing and usually a repeat of the Y form before the county. Alci12 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"THE Queen has been pleased to direct Letters Patent to be passed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, granting the dignity of a Baron of the said United Kingdom unto the Right Honourable Sir Henry Brougham Loch, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style, and title of Baron Loch, of Drylaw, in the county of Midlothian."

Compare with

"The QUEEN (has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 12th instant, (to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom for life upon Miss Elaine Frances Burton, by the name, style and title of BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY, of Coventry in the County of Warwick."

Whereas, probably the best authority on the peerage, G. E. Cokayne, etal, clearly have it Loch of Drylaw, not Loch, of Drylaw!! Rodolph 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The LG is the official announcement of the state as to the title - other than the LP there is no better authority - Cokaynes is just a commercial publication Alci12 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with your grim dismissal. GEC was undoubtedly a labour of LOVE not just a commercial publication. Anyway I'll check, thanks, xx. Rodolph 11:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, GEC is in fact well known for his mistakes in this regard, as the CP pretty much systematically conflated actual titles and territorial designations (resulting in horrific renderings like "Earl of Leicester of Holkham" and "Baron Dufferin and Claneboye of Ballyleidy and Killyleagh"). (The mistake is compounded by Burke's slavishly copying these mistakes.) Proteus (Talk) 13:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I only have access to Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage but there is no doubt that Alci12 and Proteus are correct. The title of the peerage was Baron Loch, of Drylaw. Tryde 14:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
is there not perhaps a confusion between common useage and actual technical title? Viz. Lord Montagu of Beaulieu would most likely only be known as Lord Montagu but for the plethora of other Lords Montagu. Similarly the Lords Howard de Walden were commonly known as such only because they were forced to on account of there being many other Lords Howard. The Lords Loch being reticent types and being the only ennobled users of the name Loch had no need for the perhaps pompous sounding extra OF DRYLAW tacked on, so would have quietly dropped it, hence its absense from Debrett & Burke, which as ALCI12 rather dismissively pointed out about G.E.C. are only commercial publications, but which, unlike GEC, rely most heavily on information given them by the subjects of each entry. I do, incidently, know the importance of the placement of the comma, but as I wrote elsewhere today that August 1895 Lords Journal clearly has it 'Baron Loch of Drylaw, in our county of Midlothian. I do not insist that I am right and you wrong, but there is, I feel, still remaining doubt Rodolph 15:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
We're not making reference to common usage. We're referring to the official announcement of the creation of the peerage in the London Gazette. The House of Lords journal is obviously mistaken (which is hardly a unique occurrence — I could find you dozens of mistakes therin if you'd like). Proteus (Talk) 16:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Rodolph, the way we try to deal with issues when there is contradictory infomation from different sources is try assess the sources by which is most authoritative and trustworthy. I'd suggest, and others may choose to broadly agree or not, that the hierarchy for titles is something like: The letters patent creating the title, a writ of summons to parliament, the roll of the peerage, the London Gazette (or supplement) detailing the LP, an act of parliament / royal proclamation / warrant or statutory instrument specifically naming the peer, Hansard, the various commercial publications about the peerage and so on. So while I'm perfectly happy to agree peers are sometimes wrong in their use of their title or shorten the form in use; where we have the appropriate sources we can I think be most accurate by trusting the sources most likely to be authoritative about that use on wiki Alci12 16:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earl Jellicoe

I removed the picture because it showed a tiny model of the house with a snowman in front of it... Tryde 14:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC) yes, I know it is a model with a Christmas cake's snowman in front of it, but why did you remove it? Rodolph 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heading of articles

I am sorry if you do not like this, but Wikipedia has some guidelines and this is included (you can read the whole text at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)). If there really are two persons with the same name, then they are surely different by her life data or her professions, what usually always is in the introduction, too (see William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (1468 creation) and William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (1551 creation) for example). ~~ Phoe talk 16:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Queen's Speech 2001.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen's Speech 2001.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. William Avery 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castle

I noticed your edit at Fingask Castle. If you have an interest in castles, you may wish to vote at WP:ACID to improve the Castle article. It is going to fail its nomination today if we do not get two more votes soon. Please contribute!

Thanks. --Grimhelm 22:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heello

Hello Rodolpho I see you added info to Henry Jerome de Salis about the Blossets- I have created a page on the first Blosset to come to Britain/Ireland here Salomon Blosset de Loche

Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 04:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gustv, great work. Thanks for telling me about it.Rodolph
Are you able to tell me the source that describes the father of Julia Henrietta (Harriet) Blosset as Salomon de Blosset de Loche? I believe he was commonly known as Solomon Stephen Blosset- I am not entirely certain he inherited the Seigneurie of Loche as I think perhaps that Seigneuries were similar to an English Lord of the Manor so would pass down through property rather than blood (I imagine the French property of the Blossets would have been confiscated), Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gustav, see this link for a fine painting of Selina Grote/Peckwell:

www.richard-green.com/DesktopDefault. aspx?tabid=6&tabindex=5&objectid=1341 The Solomon Blosset info came from the Trinity College Library, Cambridge, UK. Amongst the Mayor papers are some of those of the Blosset's, however, the web site seems to be not working properly tonight/this year, so I can't give you a link, or check...Other info/confirmation came from an old Joseph Banks biog.Rodolph

[edit] Sections

Heya, you don't need to insert a <br> to divide two sections, a white line for this is sufficient and will in addition not confuse other users either. Greetings and Happy Easter ~~ Phoe talk 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) ~~

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/d/User_talk%7ERodolph_4cc3.html"