User talk:Opera hat/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Opera hat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

...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)

A question has arisen concerning the name of the article "Anthem of Europe". A discussion has opened up in Talk:Anthem of Europe. Your input is requested there. This is a neutrally worded notification sent to a small number of editors informed by a previous discussion of a similar nature about the article "Flag of Europe" and is intended to improve rather than to influence the discussion. This notification falls under the "friendly notice" clause of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an intentional redirect, it was a move as Neill Campbell was incorrectly prefixed with Lord. Craigy (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the list you've started, but do you mind it being moved to 'List of Chancellors of the University of Dublin'? Strictly speaking, the Provosts are the academic heads of Trinity, the Chancellors of the University. Strawless (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Actually, I've found there's already a List of Chancellors of the University of Dublin, started by Djegan in 2006, which is almost identical to yours, which it seems hasn't been linked from anywhere. But I prefer your formatting, shall I merge the two and make List of Chancellors of Trinity College, Dublin into a redirect? Strawless (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I answered your question on the talk page. (Great user name, BTW.)--andreasegde (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If so many people want me to stay, perhaps they should do something about getting G2bambino to stop his bullying. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've personally never noticed it before, and I'm just looking at your complaint on the admin noticeboard for incidents now. I don't think you can really ask people to fight your battles for you; the more people who remain objective in issues like this the better. If your argument is justified it will presumably result in... actually, what would happen? Would User:G2Bambino be blocked from Wikipedia? Opera hat (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll comment further when the ANI is resolved. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Donald, I thought that you read the entire discussion on the above mentioned topic. There you would be able to find many different oppinions regarding the name of that article. I would support your actions but not toward the Aimone, Duke of Spoleto. He was best known in the historiography as Tomislav II of Croatia, books have been written under that title and not as Aimone. -- Imbris (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. I notice that some of the series 4 characters on the Blackadder template have (presumably posthumous) VCs MCs etc (and Melchett a string of honours) — but I can't find citation for any of them! Where do they all come from? Do you know? Or perhaps know someone else I can ask? Cheers DBD 10:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for leaving a note on my talkpage, I have replied over there. I only want consistency across the template. May I also offer my sincere thanks for bringing this to the talkpage and not into an edit war. Perhaps you want to leave a cross post at WP:MARITIME asking for opinions? Best Regards. Woody (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Oper hat! We need your help around Catherine of Aragon. User:Chloe2kaii7 keeps inserting misleading and unnecessary lines which also make the article look horrible. It's impossible to convince her to stop. Please take a look at the article. I've also urged User:DBD, but I am not sure how fast he can react. I'm already on the edge of my nerves... Surtsicna (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly! Yes, you're right about Calais, but who could explain that to her when she can't understand the difference between regent and [queen] regnant? Opera, she will undo my edit regardless of what reason I give for removal of those titles. Could you please support me and remove those titles yourself? Perhaps she will understand that she is wrong if someone else tells her that. Besides, I've already broken the three-reverts-rule and I am running out of patience. Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is trying to convince her too, but we've been unsuccessful so far; check the Revision history of Catherine of Aragon. Thank you anyway, Opera. Bye! Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Opera! I hope you can answer my question: is it allowed to use non-free image in the lead? I believe that Image:QEQM 100th birthday.jpg would be perfect for this article, since it depicts the only woman who used the title of Queen Mother at the point of her life when she used the title, but many users would rather have a free-image of a woman who was never styled Queen Mother. Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, too bad. Do you happen to know someone who knows something about non-free images and things like that? As for Catherine, I am really glad you joined the discussion. It was simply impossible to revert her edits ten times a day and keep a cool head.

I have another question for you: what do you think about moving Mary Tudor, Queen of France to Mary Tudor, Duchess of Suffolk? Peeresses usually have their marital title as part of the article title, while queens consort don't. She is better known as Duchess of Suffolk anyway, especially when referring to her granddaughter's right of succession. Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mary was indeed known as The French Queen and Katherine Parr was known as Queen Katherine (see this section). It shouldn't matter how she was styled 400 years ago - it is important how she is referred to today. It's not such a big issue, actually. I just wanted some consistency. Surtsicna (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a post on WP:AN that you may or may not wish to comment on. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 07:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, saw this on Choess's page; I can't find anything here, so i'm assuming he didnt reply. "Sir" with GBE, KBE, so on refers to a knighthood; the postnomials aren't included because they aren't part of a title per se. "Sir X Bt." is a Baronetage, a different title where the full format is "Sir X, 1st (second, third) Baronet"; as such, the Bt. is included (or the full title if you're not a fan of abbreviations). Ironholds (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah right, I get where you're coming from; I assumed you meant you were confused as to the nature of "Bt." I've done quite a bit of work on articles with baronets involved and personally I always try and keep Bt.'s out of it. Ironholds (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm afraid I let that slide. I think I'm slowly coming around to your position, OH, but I'll have to think about it a bit further. Choess (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi-

Sorry I didn't respond. I'm not very good with complex images... perhaps someone at WP:GL could help? [ roux ] [x] 18:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiya.. I'm going through and fixing those. I know it's correct, but sources are proving elusive. [ roux ] [x] 17:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow! For a seemingly straight-forward and simple question, you seem to have opened a proberbial "can of worms". Well, I'm "hooked", and am interested to know the answer! What do you think the next step should be? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You're quite right on both counts. Lord knows where I was looking. Do you want to change them or shall I? Regards, Craigy (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Try Doyle's Official Baronage. Choess (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Charles Gordon-Lennox, Earl of March and Kinrara (b. 8 January 1955) British peer

is an entry on the page March (surname), but without brackets on British peer. British peer as a link is redirected to British peerage, but it would hardly be correct to place that as identification for the Earl. What would be the best identification? Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

I'm sorry I had to revert your edit. You see you replaced John Spencer-Churchill, 10th Duke of Marlborough who lived from 1897 to 1972 with the 1st Duke of Marlborough who died in 1722. There is no way a man who died in 1722 is contemporary with the cast of this movie that takes place in the 1930's. Research the person a little more before you make a edit. Thank you. Have a nice day.

Well I'm sorry you think I had a tone with you but maybe I should have. I remember the part you are talking about but if you watch the film again there is a scene in Winston's house and he has guests over and young lady is talking to a man who is referred to as the Duke of Marlborough. So if you think your right and I'm wrong you need to re edit the page so that people will know that it is an ancestor not contemporary. I will watch the film again tonight and if I am wrong I'll admit it but you need to add that it is an ancestor. Thank you Have a great day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Cobb (talk • contribs) 23:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I noted your wikilink from George Bowes to his father William...which actually redirects to Bill Bowes, the cricketer. Just checking if this was a slip up or if you're going to add an article about William Bowes, MP? Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The latter. Opera hat (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked then! Bluewave (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please could you add citations for this edit as the current source does not support the full names. -- PBS (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Basil Murray, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basil Murray until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Keeper of the Privy Seal of Ireland, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Opera hat, I’m creating a new article User:Stephen2nd/Royal Labels of England, and I’m seeking opinions/consensus on their origins. re There are a number of anomalies, such as the difference between a ‘blue’ and ‘white’ label, in reference to whether there is a difference between ‘Heir apparent &/or presumptive’ –and- ‘Prince of Wales.’ These anomalies stem from the label argent given to Thomas of Brotherton &c, as heir apparent to King Edward I. Was this the origin of a white label? Were Thomas and his descendants Princes of Wales (Mowbray was descended from the earls of Chester &c) ? Also, can you clarify the relationship between the arms of Mowbray as Thomas’s heir, with the arms of Richard II? Thanks for your time, knowledge and considerations. Can you please reply on the articles talk page. (NB: I've also asked John K & GoodDay) Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if Miesianiacal is throwing in the towel here (which I doubt), that still leaves dozens of other articles that are distorted by his strange agenda. john k (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A reminder that DEFAULTSORT is all capitals and takes a colon - for instance {{DEFAULTSORT:Firbank, Thomas}}, not {{defaultsort|Firbank, Thomas}} —Paul A (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

this redirects to 9th Earl which is wrong. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Opera hat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.