User talk:Lord Emsworth/Archive 6
Hitchcock
[edit]Alfred Hitchcock is not a "British topic", just because he was born and raised in England. He lived half his life in the States, and his impact and influence are global; he is a world figure. In particular, even if this article was a "British topic", it is plainly wrong to correct spellings and punctuations for characters which are not British. This would be the same as using American spelling and punctuation for British names, just because they occured in an "American article". Moreover, I doubt the choice of humor/humour, favorite/favourite is important anyway, it's clear what the word is. The deplorable state of the quality of the writing in the article is far more urgent. Revolver 12:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Template:17centmin
[edit]Hmm. Succession tables seem to be more of a navigational tool, and do little in showing general trends. For example, my template would illustrate if a certain minister continually returned to office (showing parliamentary instability). However, I won't object if you replace my template with succession boxes, of which I am a proponent in most cases (but not in this case). ugen64 01:36, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, that makes sense. On a different note, however, I noticed you were removing the "Throughout" term designations, making them "1660–1667" (to take Clarendon Ministry as an example). However, that implies that all of the ministers simply left government in 1667, whereas that's not really true (Lauderdale served until 1680, and so on). Is there, perhaps, a way to designate terms that last longer than the ministry itself that provides clarity? ugen64 18:04, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Baron ffrench
[edit]Is this a real peerage dignity: Baron ffrench? It's lowercase, and seems odd... ugen64 14:08, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it is odd, isn't it? :-) It's real, though. (See here and here.) Proteus (Talk) 14:17, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1757
[edit]Well, Pitt resigned in April, but the ministry continued with Devonshire as First Lord and Holdernesse as Secretary of State. At the end of June, that ministry seems to have resigned, but it seems to have taken several days for the new ministry to be formed. I'm not sure of the details on that. john k 20:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I had not noticed this project. Given that I'm the one who initially put in all the cabinet lists to the British PM articles, I'd have thought someone would have thought to have told me about this. While I don't object to the idea, I don't like the current format, which is probably the least clear possible way to show cabinet shuffles. Given that at, for instance Cabinets under Margaret Thatcher (previously part of the Thatcher article), Mackensen had taken the trouble to untangle the cabinet shuffles, the list with which you have replaced it seems distinctly less useful. Personally, I still like the way of doing it with a full list of the initial ministry, with changes noted below, and with major reshuffles occasioning a new list, but I think that at the very least we should have separate lists for major reshuffles - the Thatcher list in its current form is essentially useless, and gives no sense of the composition of the ministry at any one time, which should be the purpose of these pages. john k 20:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't mind the tabular format. But in what way did the old way of doing things not show everybody who served in the ministry? It perhaps did not show it clearly enough in the "Changes" section, but the new table shows no information that was not in the previous table. Perhaps we could use the basic table format for the initial ministry, and then have a separate table for changes, with dates and then the new ministers listed in it? As such...
Changes
| Date | Name | Office | Replaced |
|---|---|---|---|
| June 1893 | The Lord Moore | Secretary of State for Dillydallying | Sir Spratley Tudsmere-Miller |
? john k 20:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Earl Winterton
[edit]I noticed that you wrote the article on the title Earl Winterton and stated that the 1907-1962 Earl (a minor British Cabinet minister) was the 5th Earl, though a number of other online sources say he was the 6th. Can I ask your source?
(I've put the article on said Earl at Edward Turnour, 5th Earl Winterton but can change it if needs be.)
Timrollpickering 12:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Robert Walpole
[edit]I've edited Robert Walpole a tiny bit after you brilliantly reworked the article. However, I noticed a number of instances of the word "reëlection": is that a real word, or did you mean perhaps "reelection" or "re-election" (without the accent)? Cheers, ugen64 22:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, I did not realize that the diaresis was there on purpose. That does make sense, now that I think about it - naïve, Noël, etc... but to be fair, I think the more common usage is "re-election". Cheers, ugen64 01:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Duke of Wellington
[edit]My lord, Philip Baird Shearer has gone and turned Duke of Wellington into a disambiguation page. I've left a note on his talk page, but I thought you should be aware of the situation. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Post-Nominals
[edit]About what time were post nominals adopted? I have used them with people who served in the 19th century or later (see David Dundas (soldier)), but it seems kinda odd to see something like George Monck, 1st Duke of Albemarle, KG, KB, PC. My superficial knowledge of British conventions leads me to believe that post-nominals are a recent addition, but... what are your opinions? ugen64 21:40, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi Emsworth! First, let me tell that i'm always impressed by your writing, in form and wit, but knowing your age i value it even more. Compliments aside, I need your opinion on the organization of British monarchs family tree. Derek Ross suggested that the Scottish monarchs should be with the UK kings and leave the England kings apart, since thats the real lie of descent. I agree this is true, but i think the change would be kind of starnge. Can i ask for your 2 cents in the discussion page? Cheers, [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 08:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Colin Campbell
[edit]Colin Campbell has become quite a mess. It would be good to disambiguate. I thought perhaps you could move the current article to it's proper nomenclature? -- Decumanus 22:46, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
- Done. -- Emsworth 23:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Navboxes... yet again
[edit]I have made a change to my succession box template (see Spencer Compton for results). However, I am hesitant to keep that change, because it is inconsistent with the other navboxes (such as the one at the bottom of Robert Walpole). Do you think it'd be more prudent to move *all* navboxes (meaning practically every British/English statesman that ever lived) to the new template format (which would make overall changes a *lot* easier), or keep the old format? Cheers, ugen64 01:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there is only one way (that I can think of) to do that. I would have to make a separate template for two offices with the same predecessor, and another one for two offices with the same successor (and that wouldn't even work for odd cases like Winston Churchill). Or, we would have to use the normal table syntax for those special cases, which would look something like this:
<delete cluttered stuff>
which looks a bit ugly... -- ugen64 01:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- (I deleted the block of code which cluttered up the page.) This is as far as I got: User:Ugen64/Test; as you can see, it's not really that clean. If you are in agreement, I'll start converting navboxes to the new format. -- ugen64 02:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds fair -- there's (in the overall picture) not that many of those special cases, anyway. ugen64 02:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Kudos on the succession box template! You and Ugen64 have done yeoman service, and I will use your template from now on. Steve Casburn 09:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Images
[edit]Dear Emsworth, I have uploaded the following images from an 1881 biography of Beaconsfield. I assume they are out of copyright. You may care to install them in the relevant articles:
| | |||||
| | |||||
| |
Salutations Adam 06:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'll crop them to a reasonable size and exclude the extra stuff, like this: <snip> ugen64 03:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I've cropped them:
| | |||||
| | |||||
| |
Cheers :) ugen64 03:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Image problems
[edit]Well I used all of the images, but had some problems. Firstly: what should the caption of Lord John Manners's picture be? I used "The Rt Hon. Lord John Manners" (which might be "The Rt Hon. The Lord John Manners"), but should he be "His Grace The Duke of Rutland," or what? (the picture was engraved while his father was still the duke). Also, Lord Salisbury's picture seemed better in the original version, and I was confused whether you put a "the" before peerages (The Rt Hon. The Earl of Carnarvon?). But overall, I think it's pretty well set. ugen64 04:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think using the name at the time of the picture would be best. That's what we seem to do with PM pictures, anyway, which are generally of them during their time in office and so don't include peerages awarded on retirement. (By the way, "The Rt Hon. The Lord John Manners" and "The Rt Hon. The Earl of Carnarvon" are correct.) Proteus (Talk) 10:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Here's another batch
| | |||||
|
| |
Adam 06:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I used new names for all of them (for example, Image:Spencer Horatio Walpole). I had one problem: which Baron Lytton is it - the first or second one? Cheers, ugen64 02:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Back to Navboxes
[edit]I noticed you changed the Template:Succession box into id=toc. Personally, I like the older format better, because it seems easier to read (especially if you are using a smaller font). But nonetheless, I don't object if you keep your change. ugen64 18:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I (and others) have started converting all the old wikitax tables to succession boxes. There's a list of boxes in use at Template_talk:Succession box. We've found Template:PeerNavbox a bit lacking because it can't handle multiple titles, so I've tried something new over at Dudley Ryder, 1st Earl of Harrowby. The dates are when he came into the respective titles. What do you think of all this? Mackensen (talk) 20:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree the years aren't necessary, but otherwise we have to create a whole separate set of boxes without them. Mackensen (talk) 20:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Victoria of the United Kingdom
[edit]I don't understand why you reverted my added wikilinks to the page Victoria of the United Kingdom. Could you explain why? Donar Reiskoffer 15:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are correct to say that some of articles were already linked to frome elsewhere in the article, but this is not the case for Benjamin Disraeli, William Ewart Gladstone, and Liberal Party. I will reinstate these links, ok? Donar Reiskoffer 07:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Samuel Silkin, Baron Silkin of Dulwich
[edit]Hi, could you possibly do an article on Samuel Silkin, the Attorney General, the son of Lewis Silkin, 1st Baron Silkin. GeneralPatton 08:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Big thanks! Great work! GeneralPatton 03:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 08:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Anne Hyde
[edit]Please see my comments on the talk page for Lady Anne Hyde. I was coming here to ask your opinion before I realised that you had moved it. Maybe you could enlighten me. Deb 18:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Duchesses
[edit]What is the style/address of the following people:
- Wallis Warfield Simpson, when she was Duchess of Windsor, she was denied the HRH style, does that mean she had the style Her Grace instead, or was she just plain Duchess?
- Sarah, Duchess of York- now she no longer has the HRH style, does she have the Her Grace style Astrotrain 14:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Article Liscensing
[edit]Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...
- ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
- ...all articles...
using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.
- Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man 16:32, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Sutton Foster
[edit]Hey - just a heads up that we both edited the same article at the same time -- sorry I clobbered your stuff. --Arcadian 21:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First Lord of the Treasury
[edit]Well, I figured we treated the First Lord of the Treasury much as we treat subsidiary peerages. It's so rarely separate from the Prime Minister (Salisbury/Balfour is the only case that comes to mind) it seems a needless addition. That does assume, of course, that our readers know that the two are linked and that the office of PM wasn't recognized until CB. Hrmm. I suppose I could go either way. Mackensen (talk) 20:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- For pedantry's sake, there's also Salisbury/Iddesleigh, Salisbury/Smith and Chatham/Grafton for starters. Timrollpickering 11:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Earl De La Warr Courtesy Title
[edit]Your input at Talk:Earl De La Warr is requested. Timrollpickering 11:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Emsworth, James and I were wondering what you knew about the Earls of Lennox. Our page currently shows the 1184 creation ending with Isabel in 1459. Leigh Rayment's page suggests that the earldom merely went dormant and lasted until 1571 [1], where our page suggests that there was a new creation. I've compiled some genealogical data which would seem to back Rayment: User:Mackensen/The Curious Case of the Earl of Lennox. What do you make of this? Mackensen (talk) 04:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, now that would explain matters. I'll update accordingly. Thanks much, Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Unspecified image
[edit]Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:
I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?
You can use {{gfdl}}: Template:gfdlif you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License,
{{fairuse}}Template:fairuseif you claim fair use, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.
If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much. Denni☯ 04:23, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.
Hello!
[edit]Greetings, Lord Emsworth!
A journalist from a major publication is interested in interviewing you. He tried emailing you through the wikipedia system, but has gotten no response.
Can you email me with some contact information? jwales@wikia.com
--Jimbo Wales 03:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Peerage Enquiries
[edit]Evening (or morning, perhaps), milord.
A number questions on the peerage for you. Primarily, is it not standard practice to not have a page for a title in the British nobility if there was only one holder of said title before extinction (i.e. with the Earl Alexander of Hillsborough or the Earl of Kilmuir? I've been pawing through articles on lists of titles and a disturbing number have had pages dedicated to the title when there has been only a single holder. Isn't this contrary to usual practice?
Also, a secondary question. Women who were created peers (before women gained the right to sit in the Lords - I never knew they'd not had it, as baronies regularly passed through women [i.e. the Strange barony, the Lucas barony, etc.]) were not technically life peers, were they? Wasn't it in the same way most women who were granted any title were handled, essentially given a peerage with remainder to heirs-male, which as heirs-male legally must inherit from fathers would cause it to simply pass out of existence anyway? Also, is it not true that there have never been any dedicated life peerages given above the rank of baron (one could make a case for the viscountcies Tonypandy and Whitelaw, but didn't these just pass out of existence due to lack of heirs rather than specific intent to grant them for life?)?
Forgive me, but one further question (and I know this must be inane): what is the policy on titling articles where singularly-held peerages are concerned? In some places (besides royals who hold non-inheritable peerages), persons are noted as "John Doe, Earl Doe" and in some they are noted as "Joseph Doe, 1st Viscount Doe", despite the fact that in both cases the titles became extinct upon the death of the person to whom they were granted. What is the rationale behind this, and is there any sort of reason or rhyme to it?
Your obedient,
Wally 09:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Plural of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports?
[edit]A day or two ago I went on a spontaneous categorization spree for all the people listed under Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, and in hindsight it occurs to me that I should have made sure I knew what the proper plural of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports was before I did that. User:Mackensen suggested you might know. Did I guess right, or do I have some cleanup to do? :) Bryan 06:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, hopefully it's not "Lord Warden of the Cinque Portses" :) ugen64 07:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
PMs and other positions
[edit]What're we doing about positions held concurrently with another position (Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal, for example), when we're writing navboxes? Take, for example, William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne - he was PM and Leader of the Lords concurrently, but the "preceded by" and "succeeded by" are the same person. A complicated example is that of Gareth Williams, Baron Williams of Mostyn. This is inconsistent - glancing at the article, noone would realise/realize that Lord Shelburne was a Leader of the House of Lords... ugen64 07:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If I understand you right, we had the same thing over at Benjamin Disraeli, and we used Template:Succession box one to one or some such. Mackensen (talk) 07:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Deleted stuffs
[edit]I noticed that in June you have deleted some info tables of Japanese Emperors: Emperor Nakamikado of Japan, Emperor Sakuramachi of Japan, Emperor Momozono of Japan, Empress Go-Sakuramachi of Japan, Emperor Go-Momozono of Japan, Emperor Kokaku of Japan, Emperor Ninko of Japan, and Emperor Komei of Japan. Can you explain why? --Nanshu 01:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Call for AMA election
[edit]AMA Member Advocate,
There's a poll currently in the AMA Homepage about making a new AMA Coordinator election. Please, cast your vote there (though it's not mandatory). Any comments you have about this, write it on the AMA Homepage talk page. Cheers, --Neigel von Teighen 18:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Proposals for AMA Membership Meeting
[edit]As AMA Coordinator I am requesting that suggestions be placed on Wikipedia:AMA Membership Meeting plans for our first membership meeting, to be held in the near future, (hopefully before any election occurs.) Since we have never had any kind of "official" meeting we need to discuss how this will occur (i.e. Wiki pages or IRC channel), how it will be structured (i.e. meeting agenda) and if there will be any "chair" to supervise the meeting and meeting "secretary" to write up minutes or keep some kind of official record of what transpires. Thanks in advance for your input and your continued work as an advocate. — © Alex756 19:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OFFICIAL AMA MEETING NOTICE
[edit]The first AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 23, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA (Miami/Montreal) Time, 11 AM Pacific NA (Los Angeles/Vancover)Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend. — © Alex756 19:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Colored peers
[edit]Hi, I'm creating a series of articles on colored hereditary peers and baronets. While there seems to be several Indians that were granted baronetcies I can only find one hereditary peer Baron Sinha of Indian extraction. There seem to have been no peers or baronets of African extraction however. Do you happen to know of any other hereditary peers of non-white extraction?
Further, it is not very clear what happened to the title of Baron Sinha after the death of the First Baron. The 2nd Baron Sinha was deemed the product of a polygamous marriage and was also an Indian citizen, both of which would have disqualified him from the peerage. Do you know if the title of Baron Sinha of Raipur is extant? Thanx,
--Notquiteauden 22:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Lord Sinha is the only Indian hereditary peer, and his was the only non-white peerage created until 1947 when India became independent.
The title still exists. The first Baron was followed by: Aroon Sinha, 2nd Baron Sinha (1887-1967) Sudhindro Prossanho Sinha, 3rd Baron Sinha (1920-1989) Susanta Prasanna Sinha, 4th Baron Sinha (1953-1992) Anindo Kumar Sinha, 5th Baron Sinha (1930-1999) Arup Kumar Sinha, 6th Baron Sinha (b. 1966)
With the untimely death of the 4th Baron, the Barony passed to his Uncle, and successively to his cousin (the current incumbent), both of whom were/are resident in the United Kingdom.
If you are interested in learning about titles under the Raj, visit my page: http://www.geocities.com/ayanghosh/honours.html
RSATG 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
We miss you
[edit]Emsworth - your presence is missed on the FAC :( -- Come back soon →Raul654 07:37, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
Logs of first AMA Membership meeting
[edit]You may view the log of the first meeting on the following two pages: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) (first hour) and Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) Pt II (remainder of meeting). If you are interested in commenting on the agenda of the meeting please do so here:Wikipedia:AMA Meeting (suggested topics).
OFFICIAL SECOND MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
[edit]- "The second AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 30 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA Time, 11 AM Pacific NA Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend."
The coordinator is requesting that members submit the following information for the upcoming coordinator’s report:
- How many individuals did you help as an advocate
- What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
- Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
- How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?
Thank you. Please submit your responses here: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator/January 2005 Survey
OFFICIAL AMA MEETING NOTICE
[edit]OFFICIAL THIRD MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
[edit]The second AMA IRC Membership meetingwas held on Sunday January 30, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode.net IRC channel #AMA. Attending were Wally, Metasquares, Anthere, Sam Spade, and alex756 (coordinator). The log of the second meeting can be found here: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05).
"The third AMA Membership meeting will be held on Saturday February 12, 2005 at 17:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 12:00 Noon Eastern NA Time, 9 AM Pacific NA Time, and 6 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend.
Suggested Topics and Specific Proposals
[edit]- MEMBERS PLEASE REVIEW
- Suggestions for topics/proposals and agenda to be discussed at the next meeting are to be found at: Wikipedia:AMA Meeting (suggested topics). All members are requested to make proposals there and respond to proposals on the talk page there before the beginning of the next meeting so discussion can be held forthwith concerning such proposals. Thank you, your Coordinator.
The coordinator is requesting that members who have not done so already submit the following information for the upcoming coordinator’s report:
- How many individuals did you help as an advocate
- What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
- Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
- How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?
Thank you. Please submit your responses here. — © Alex756 23:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)