User talk:Opera hat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Whig Government 1846-1852

I notice that you seem to have accidentally skipped the Secretary and Under-Secretary for War and the Colonies in this one. I can put in the Secretary myself, but I don't know the Under-Secretary. john k 04:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. Sorted.

Yes, I was thinking about that as I was doing it. My basic thought was that when you're the "Duke of Something" you naturally use the article, while if you're "Viscount Something" you don't. But then for the Earls and Marquesses without "of" in their title I just did the Earl and marquess standard. Which do you think would be the better way to standardize? john k 23:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As a note, the definite article isn't used when it's a courtesey title (at least, we've been playing it that way). Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, that too. By the way, on the government pages, is there any reason why all of the non-naval lords of the admiralty haven't been listed? Weren't they politicians who came and went with the government? john k 00:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So you think just remove the articles? In terms of the civil lords of the admiralty, the current situation seems to list only one in each government. How does that work? john k 23:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I've been trying to compile a list similar to the one you made for the Duke of Wellington's 1828-1830 administration (in a word document currently), and was uncertain what to do about lords of the admiralty. Currently, my list is missing the Judge Advocate General, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General for Scotland, the Attorney and Solicitors General for Ireland, the Vice-Chamberlain, Treasurer and Comptroller of the Household, Captain of the Gentlemen Pensioners, Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, and Master of the Buckhounds. At some point I'll try to look these up in Hayden's book of dignities, but if you had those, that'd be useful. john k 02:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess my situation with Hayden's is considerably better than yours - I have access to it at my university library. Sadly, and rather absurdly, given the limited interest in it, it is a reference book that can't be taken out - this is particularly absurd given that one can take out things like the Complete Peerage and so forth from my university library. At any rate, thanks for the help - I'll try to figure it out on my own - most of the lists in the book should ultimately find their way into Wikipedia, I think. john k 02:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Governments

Hi, I thought you should know I've created a List of British Governments to bring together all of the good steady work that's been done on those pages. I've also put up succession boxes on the pages, which I hope have also made the history easier to navigate. Thanks for putting this info up.--Pharos 01:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I've copied from Twentieth Century British Political Facts and added Liberal Government 1905-1915 and Coalition Government 1915-1916. Any help in filling out the ones I didn't identify would of course be appreciated. john k 02:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Love Among the Ruins and other things

gack! ANOTHER love among the ruins! thanks for adding to the disambig page. also, noticed you are interested in the peerage -- have you ever read A Distant Mirror, about Enguerrand de Coucy? Katefan0 20:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attorney-General for Ireland/Attorney General for Ireland

I was checking whether their should be a dash included in the AG for I's title. Rather than rely on secondary sources I examined primarily documents (ie, legislation). It would appear that the their is a dash in the AG for I, and in Solicitor-General for Ireland, also a dash for the Free State's Attorney-General, but no dash for the post 1937 Irish Attorney General. The complexities of dashes, eh! FearÉIREANN 22:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 1st Earls

Opera hat, the practice of using style X, nth Earl of Y has been rejected in practice by wikipedians for medieval Scottish comital lordships. This system is English in origin, and can only be used in that country because of the Norman conquest. Earldoms such as Orkney or Angus were not new creations of any period; granting out a title after years of abeyance also does not equate to "new creation". For the middle ages at least, the earliest mormaers are not known, so assigning to them a number is ridiculous. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it at Magnus II, Earl of Orkney. This is what I believe is normally done in such circumstances. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I have an article somewhere which covers this, I'll check it out. I'd imagine the native kindreds just got on with things, but I know Shetland was brought under the Norwegian crown for sometime at some point. Lemme get back to you. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attorney General for Ireland

Could you double-check your source for "R. Green", supposedly appointed September 21, 1842? The date is out of sequence, and I suspect there's confusion with Richard Wilson Greene, Solicitor-General for Ireland November 1, 1842. Thanks. Choess 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Princes of (Fürsten zu) Leiningen

Hello;

I moved the article for the simple reason you stated: An English name. I will amend the article to provide a link to Fürst and will make clarification as to the difference between a Fürst and a Prinz. Charles 03:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bond girls

See Talk:James Bond for what User:SpecialWindler has been doing with the Bond girls. They basically posted to the talk page what they thought should happen, didn't get a response, and then went ahead with some pretty widespread changes anyway. Their interpretation of WP:BOLD I suppose but I don't agree with it. Dismas|(talk) 16:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed the other pages. Is there some way one can stop this person? Wikipedia guidelines do say pages on minor fictional characters should be merged, but s/he is taking it way too far. I personally think the style "List of... [whatever]" is rather unencyclopaedic anyway. I suppose I could just expand all the individual characters' articles until the merged pages become indisputable candidates for splitting based on their size alone, but that would take rather a lot of effort! Opera hat 11:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it's being discussed, as I said, at Talk:James Bond and will more than likely be changed back to the individual articles. I don't suggest expanding the pages too much. They'd reach a point of being full of absolutely trivial info like what color their dress was in certain scenes or whatever. Dismas|(talk) 13:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High Steward of Newcastle

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article High Steward of Newcastle, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. This article was prodded by an ip editor. LessHeard vanU 18:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High Steward of Stafford

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article High Steward of Stafford, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Again, it was prodded by an ip editor. LessHeard vanU 18:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession to the Crown category

I noted your change to the title of the category "Succession to the British Crown"; it does indeed seem unnecessarily long-winded. Wouldn't "Succession to the Crowns of the Commonwealth Realms" be more succinct but as accurate? --G2bambino 17:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard II characters

I've just noticed this edit, and I see it links to someone who (unless I'm misunderstanding something, which is perfectly possible) is ALSO a character in the play. Is that right, please? Can you clarify what your source is? Best, AndyJones 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Ah, thank you. I've just looked up the Lord Marshall in my copy of the play, and I've got a pencil note there which means that I decided NOT to include him in List of Shakespearean characters, which in turn usually only happened when I concluded that the character was just a ghost. Is the best answer to leave this as it was? AndyJones 17:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't apologise: your edit was factually correct. You get quirks like that in the histories from time to time. AndyJones 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I've been looking into this some more. Apparently Mowbray was Earl Marshal, but the Duke of Suffolk was granted the role for the purposes of the list in question (Mowbray could hardly fulfil the role himself when he was also a combatant). Suffolk also took over the role permanently when Mowbray was exiled. Also, I was wrong to conclude that Shakespeare's Lord Marshal was a ghost, and I should add him to the list of Shakespearean characters. AndyJones 19:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:British viscounts

...has been nominated for speedy deletion as an orphan! I've taken a wikibreak for Lent, so would you mind helping to sort it out please? Many thanks † DBD 00:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)