User talk:DBD/Archive 3

Archives

Archive 1 (Jul 2005 – Jul 2006) Archive 2 (Aug 2006) Archive 3 (Sep – Oct 2006) Archive 4 (Nov 2006 – Jan 2007) Archive 5 (Feb – Apr 2007) Archive 6 (May 2007) Archive 7 (Jun – Jul 2007) Archive 8 (Aug – Dec 2007) Archive 9 (Jan – Mar 2008) Archive 10 (Apr – Jun 2008) Archive 11 (Jul – Sep 2008) Archive 12 (Oct – Nov 2008) Archive 13 (Dec 2008 – May 2009) Archive 14 (Jun 2009 – May 2010) Archive 15 (Jun 2010 – Jan 2011) Archive 16 (Feb – Jul 2011) Archive 17 (Aug – Nov 2011) Archive 18 (Dec 2011 – Jan 2012) Archive 19 (Feb – Mar 2012) Archive 20 (Apr – Jul 2012) Archive 21 (Aug – Oct 2012) Archive 22 (Nov 2012 – Mar 2013) Archive 23 (Apr – Jul 2013) Archive 24 (Aug – Nov 2013) Archive 25 (Dec 2013 – Apr 2014) Archive 26 (May – Oct 2014) Archive 27 (Nov 2014 – May 2015) Archive 28 (Jun – Oct 2015) Archive 29 (Nov 2015 – Apr 2016) Archive 30 (May – Nov 2016) Archive 31 (Dec 2016 – Jul 2017) Archive 32 (Aug – Oct 2017) Archive 33 (Nov 2017 – Jul 2018) Archive 34 (Aug 2018 – May 2019) Archive 35 (Jun – Nov 2019) Archive 36 (Dec 2019 – Jun 2020) Archive 37 (Sep 2020 – Aug 2021) Archive 38 (Sep 2021 – Jun 2022) Archive 39 (Jul 2022 – Mar 2023) Archive 40 (Apr – Dec 2023) Archive 41 (Jan 2024 – May 2025)

September – October 2006

i've speedy deleted a fair chunk of your userboxes so far - one thing thing though, can ensure nobody is using them (i.e. look at User:DBD/Userboxes/KEGS/User TindalO and User:DBD/Userboxes/KEGS/User kegsOC). Thanks/wangi 00:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of my pages are mistaken namings that have been moved - I'm going though, checking used-ness (by Special:Whatlinkshere/) and marking the ones thaht want deleting. Many thanks, // DBD 00:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted those two again - they are used on User:Graham Rutland, is that an account of yours (looks similiar)? Thanks/wangi 00:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not of mine - good friend - have substed his implementations. Could you please undelete User:DBD/Userbadges; User:DBD/Userbadges/Comedy; User:DBD/Userbadges/Comedy/Badge Saxondale; User:DBD/Userbadges/Comedy/Badge Thick? Thanks // DBD 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have probably noticed occasion examples of complete Wikipedia ignorance on topics but there is a classic being discussed with an RM at talk:Prime minister. Some ill-informed individuals have moved Prime Minister to Prime minister are and so ignorant of the topic they don't realise making such a fundamental error will make WP an international laughing stock. Feel free to contribute to the debate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong.

• The official title never used United Kingdom. It used Great Britain. It didn't make sense, but all we can do is report the actual title used.
• It did not use Northern Ireland. It said Ireland and did so up until 1949. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove WPBiography templates from royalty articles - just add your Project's template. Incidentally, did you know that WPBio has a royalty workgroup? Perhaps it would be better to work as a subdivision of that or discuss some other form of cooperation/coordination? --kingboyk 10:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of Bio's work, as I had a brief discussion when I started WPBRoy, and, until now, it was my impression that WPBRoy was to become a specialised, independent, yet co-operative child project of WPBio's royalty taksforce. Of course, this will require discussions between those at Bio and those at BRoy - please do let me know where // DBD 12:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thread after this point blanked to remove from categories. Discussion about practicalaties of merger, and lots of live template examples. See this thread --kingboyk 12:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding my error in trying to her husband's title- I was simply being too hasty and forgot to do the link correctly. I "re-fixed" it and now the titles are all correct and everything links where it should! TysK 21:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DBD. Please don't add articles to WikiProject categories (see Wikipedia:Avoid self references). The WPBiography template will automatically add the talk pages to this category if the british-royalty= parameter is set to yes. Cheers. --kingboyk 09:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September Issue

Hi, I found your userpage following the Tory party userbox and thought you might be interested in joining a new userproject I've just set up, Userproject:Conservatives, to produce FA NPOV articles on Tory matters. As I am also from Essex, attend CCHS and seem to watch all the TV you do, I am especially interested in having you on board. Interested? Dev920 (Tory?) 17:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you bothered to think that seeing this title will revert to the crown that Queen Elizabeth will be the one who recreates it? Isn't this what Burke's peerage and Baronetage suggests? LW77 14:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you here and [1] // DBD 16:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that the article on bbc makes things clearer.. Other than to say that it has been agreed that Prince Edward will become Duke, upon the death of his mother and father. LW77 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that regarding yourself as an advanced mathematician is rather far fetched? Have you published in a peer-reviewed international journal? Or are you just taking for granted your A levels? LW77 14:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. These userbox "levels" are utterly unqualified and non-specific. Not that it should matter to you... // DBD 17:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. LW77 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I didn't get back to you before about the WikiProject British Royalty and the reworking of the English dynastic templates. I think what you've done with the infoboxes is absolutely a step in the right direction, though I'd still rather seen them gone alltogether. As for the Wikiproject, I'd join a descendant project on medieval royalty, but I don't think it would be right of me to take on the responsiblity of creating one.

Anyway, I've been busy completely rewriting Edward III, to what I believe is FA standard. Please have a look, and involve the community in the discussion if possible. Cheers! Eixo 01:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm pretty excited about it! Eixo 12:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate you put some effort skinning a new infobox, we already have an "infobox" class for this purpose. There are a number of reasons why we use this over custom inline styling. Most of these are outlined on the article Separation of style and content, which is support by our style guideline at WP:ACCESS ("Avoid inline CSS style= attributes where a similar common class is available, e.g. class="wikitable"."). Again I appreciate you may be attached to your design, but is better for everyone else if we use a class - then you can reskin it however you like by editing your /monobook.css file. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 09:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whilst I appreciate that you're only doing as Wikipedia's guides dictate - could we do some fiddling with the style - e.g. I carefully created conditional borders to break up certain "groups" of content - this overhaul leaves the template looking quite confusing... The subtle purple scheme was basically there to mark the infobox as something of the WikiProject... // DBD 09:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that all members of the House of Wettin (that is all of Princes and Princesses of the Saxonies) bear at least the style of Highness. They were upgraded from Serene Highness to Highness after the Congress of Vienna. To change the styles of late nineteenth and twentieth century Wettins to Serene Highness is wrong. That style is for princely and mediatized ducal families. Charles 18:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - was under the impression that they held HH as British Royalty, and that without that, they were HSH. Thanks for clearing that up // DBD 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's something that comes up rather frequently. What could be noted in the title changes is the loss of the British princely titles, if that would clear things up for readers. Charles 18:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DBD. If you want to make changes to the WPBio template, especially if they involve changing code:

• Please give a detailed edit summary to explain what you're doing and,
• If the changes are significant discuss it on the talk page first
• Don't mark major edits as minor
• Do the changes in a sandbox first and then paste them in in a single edit

The template is used on well over 100,000 pages and it's a big strain on the server every time it's updated. I also can't risk allowing big code changes without discussion first because of the risk of collateral damage. --kingboyk 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I tried to edit Template:WPBiography such that one could choose the order in whihc articles are listed. It didn't work. Could you please help out? Cheers, // DBD 22:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Yeah, sorry about the errors - I thought I could do it... Interesting we dropped comments to eachother at a similar time! // DBD 22:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're both online at the same time :) You can write to me here. I'm not sure whether your edits worked or not, it might have been simply that they appeared to you not to work because I rolled back to the old version. I don't have time to test new additions now, and you didn't say what the changes were, so I opted for safety and rolled back. Sorry about that.

If you'd care to post on the template talk what you're trying to achieve and the code you've come up with we can see about implementing it tommorow. Sorry to be a pain I just don't fancy having 100,000 broken talk pages :) --kingboyk 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DBD. You reverted my changes at Alexander Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Carisbrooke and referred to the discussion of the style guide at BRoy. I've been trying to edit pages on peers who are related to the Royal Family, bringing them into the standards set at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage. I've tried to stay away from actual members of the Royal Family, as I thought those would fall under the style guidelines of BRoy. I don't consider Lord Carisbrooke an actual royal, although I can see how he falls under the purview of your project. However, I haven't been able to find any style guide (or discussion of one) at BRoy or at WikiProject Biography/Royalty, and I feel that the changes I made are in line with what is logical, with WikiProject Peerage's standards, and reflect most British Royalty articles. I understand that Lord Carisbrooke (as well as the 1st Marquesses of Cambridge and Milford Haven and the 1st Earl of Athlone) is a unique situation because he was a German royal who was British for all practical purposes and who became a British peer, but I felt that the article needed to fall under some standards. I would appreciate discussing the matter of these articles with you, as well as what broadly needs to fall under WikiProject British Royalty, and what under WikiProject Peerage. Thanks! TysK 03:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's all fine - I now understand why you were making said edits. You won't find the style guide discussion yet, because it hasn't started - I'm currently working on a full proposal for the group to discuss and improve. Of course, WP Peerage are welcome to drop by and join in discussions - seeing as our style guide would be implemented on a few of their pages, they certainly deserve a say. // DBD 08:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was NOT reached for the move and other options are under discussion. Please move the page back. Charles 17:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just to let you know, when you rv'd some real vandalism on Casualty (TV series) you also inadvertently rv'd some legitimate reformatting I did. No prob, I've reapplied the formatting --Mortice 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DBD here, founder of the WikiProject British Royalty - just wondering why you changed the Stuart template from James, the Old Pretender and Bonnie Prince Charlie to their names. I don't disagree with the change, I'm just wondering what the reasons may be... Cheers - DBD^R 13:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went to this template to edit it because at one level it described Charles Edward Stuart as "The OLD Pretender" (which, of course, is just wrong). To describe James Francis and Charles Edward in a genealogical template with sobriquets is, I think, inappropriate. It doesn't make matters any better that the particular sobriquets are POV (what attracted me to the Template was its use on the page Jacobite succession - where these POV sobriquets are especially inappropriate). Surely it is better to use the neutral wiki-article titles. I hope you concur. Noel S McFerran 14:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]