User talk:DBD/Archive 8

August – December 2007

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Waterloo Road Episode Four.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Waterloo Road Episode Four.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PS-Animagus.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PS-Animagus.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 14:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Senior Management Team

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Senior Management Team, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite!

Thank you for finding the cite and adding it to Royal Consorts of the United Kingdom and its predecessor realms. I added it to Prince consort as well, as it was also needed there. That's the great thing about WP, there are enough eyes and ears on articles, that things are fixed right quick! — MrDolomite • Talk 14:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Very welcome – we all do what we can! DBD 19:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy peers and so forth

Thanks for your message, DBD. I think it's preferable to have links in these templates to be of a uniform style, even if some of them are redlinks: it seems confusing that one link should lead to a particular person and the next should go to an article on a series of dukes, say. Incidentally, the courtesy viscounts template was already formatted that way when Craigy144 set it up. I agree that being a courtesy peer is not evidence of notability per se, and that many of these articles will remain uncreated, at least until their succession to the peerage. If having large numbers of redlinks is objectionable, then perhaps we should reconsider the need for such a template in the first place. Choess 00:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:PS-Animagus.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:PS-Animagus.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy-ford.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Buffy-ford.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Monarch infobox

You might be interested in taking a peek at this: Template_talk:Infobox Monarch#Queen, consort, spouses. Charles 06:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

It feels good to be appreciated. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Female consort arms

Unmarried women show their arms on a lozenge (diamond). This includes both maids and widows. Married women show a shield with their husbands' arms on the left side and their fathers' on the right. Widows show the same thing, but on a lozenge instead of a shield. Maids show a lozenge with just their fathers' arms (unless they have their own). It's a custom. I don't think anything I read ever explained why. I think it's a way of showing that an unmarried woman is defenseless, but a married woman has a husband to defend her.

I might be wrong about putting the Princess Royal's and Princess Alexandra's arms on a lozenge, but I think I'm right as long as their husbands' arms aren't being represented. I haven't seen any other drawings of their arms, so it's all a gray area to me. By all rights, their arms should be on the right side of their husbands' shields. It just seemed natural to put them on lozenges without their husbands' arms, and I didn't really think about it at the time. I'll look into it a little more. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 15:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would wonder if he didn't. He's been knighted. It's not required, but it would seem strange to me, especially since he's married to a royal. Maybe he didn't inherit arms, but he might have had them created. You would be surprised to learn how easy it is for a citizen of the UK to legally assume arms. All it takes is money for registration. It's much easier here in the US because it's unregulated. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I found what looks like an old version of the Wikipedia page on answers.com[1]. It looks like they're using fair use images from the royal website, and the two married princesses have arms on a lozenge. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 05:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your goodly amount of pleasant humours

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		"The Barnstar of Good Humour may be awarded to particularly light-spirited Wikipedians by whom, as result of their magnificent humour, the mood of Wikipedia is consistently and reliably lightened and its habitation made considerably less painful." Damn that barnstar page needs an English grammar check. In short, this barnstar is for you and your userpage to share, specifically your userboxes. I'm afraid they're so brilliant I may have to steal some for my page. In addition, this is presented for having an incredible list of interests and hobbies, a large number of which are similar to mine (most of the comedy stuff, the subjects, the grammatical ideologies and the upholding of our sweet mother tongue (oh, and that Blackadder episode)). Reading your userboxes brightened my day. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And to think I found you through Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester in my watchlist. :D —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Princess Frederica of Hanover

Please look at the sources as to how this lady is titled. Almost always she is "Princess Frederica of Hanover" or "Princess Frederica of Hanover, Baroness von Pawel-Rammingen" - although there are occasional peculiarities such as "Princess Frederica of Rammingen"!! Noel S McFerran 00:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms

Hi, DBD. It seems those involved at the discussion regarding the Royal Family and the Commonwealth realms have refused to abide by the suggestion we agreed would be acceptable. I noted you said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty that you would add your proposed guideline to the front page; is that still your intention? The behaviour of two editors in particular is really getting out of hand. Cheers. --G2bambino 00:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Never Mind the Sources

Hi, i'm sure I read in a TV Guide that it would be a 12 episode run this time round.

sepmix 14:32, 27 November 2007 (GMT)

I'm failry sure it's been thrown away, it was from two weeks ago.

sepmix 15:54, 27 November 2007 (GMT)

Dmise of the Crown

Checked the 1901 Act, it make no reference to employment. Can it be proved that they are either employees of the person or the office, because your latest edit contradicts what is already there - not to say that that in itself is correct of course! Ninetyone 21:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I shall see if I can find a reference online – I just know because when I signed my contract with Buckingham Palace, that contract was with "HM The Queen and her successors" or similar... DBD 23:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Civil Service satisfies me :) Ninetyone 15:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wellington arms

You're right. I fucked it upmade it wrong. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's better now. Thanks for the heads up! -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

HRH

DBD, I'm not totally sure but I think I've taken that from: Montgomery-Massingberd, Hugo (ed.) (1977) Burke's Royal Families of the World, 1st edition (Burke's Peerage, London). My old notes from there say that Christian IX and his children were made HRH on 21 December 1858. DrKiernan 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool – I hope you won't mind if I check it out! DBD 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lady Louise, again

I have read the source, which I had read before, but do not see how it backs up what it says. The monarch's word alone is not law, and I don't believe ever really has been in the UK. Things have to be backed up by an Act of Parliament or Letters Patent, and one simply press statement cannot revert a legally-binding Letters Patent. In the same way the Queen could declare someone an HRH without creating the relevant letters patent. Her word alone does not make law, and in this case it isnt even her word it is a press statment that the Queen gave her permission to. Wikipedia should follow the law, and there is no law that contradicts the 1917 Letters Patent.--UpDown 12:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a NPOV issue, there will always be another side to every argument, as humans will disagree, but in this the law means the other side of the argument does need to be mentioned. Also, the press release (which your link links to) states that any children will not be HRHs, the actually Prince or Princess isn't mentioned. So if you take the press release as The Queen's express wish, the Louise is a Princess without the HRH. --UpDown 12:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't really understand your last comment. As I say above the law trumps anything else, even the monarch in this case. To quote the press release the children "should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness", so taking your side that this becomes law, Louise is a Princess without HRH. Clearly not the case. We have to stick with the law, only one website claims otherwise, and that website does not beat the law.--UpDown 12:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Princes of Wales}}

Thanks for the note, I'm sure others may have the same question, so I created Template talk:Princes of Wales and added your note. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Princess Augusta Frederika of Wales

Please refrain from moving the article once again. The correct naming of the article was already discussed - as you demanded (obviously without looking at the article's discussion page)! -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Line of succession

Hi. I've taken the liberty of removing your reply to a question I posed on Talk:Line of succession to the British Throne. The purpose of my question wasn't curiosity to find out the answer (I already know what I think), but a curiosity to find out what PatGallagher thinks he answer is. So I hope you understand why I removed your reply. Thanks, Doops | talk 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Extant British dukedoms

DBD, I've created a new template based on Template:British dukes. Could you check it for accuracy? Thanks! -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether or not the precedence for the dukedoms is the same as the precedence of the Dukes. I got the idea that they might be different from Template talk:British dukes. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 05:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Spooks episodes

Hi. I was just wondering why you have numbered the episodes from 1 all the way through to 56 in Series 5. While the series do have a sort of continuity, the episodes technically start back at episode one at the beginning of a new series. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's just that it's fairly obvious what in-series number each episode has because they're listed in order within series... It's a fairly usual thing across the 'pædia... If you're really against it, though, you're welcome to be bold DBD 21:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not against it. I just though I'd ask that was all. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Arms of British Royals

I've been uploading images. I'd like your opinion on the best way to present them. Would you like them in the navbox for the royal house in place of the Royal Arms (example), or would you like them separately next to the description (example)? I'm just a little wary, because a lot of articles have 3 coat of arms images in them, and I don't want to overdo it. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was also thinking of coronets of rank for the style boxes. There are specific coronets for children and grandchildren of monarchs. I don't think there are any images of British coronets, but I've been wanting to put some together. I've been putting it off, because they're a lot more difficult to make than a shield of arms. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a test image layout in my sandbox from the article Prince George, Duke of Kent. What do you think? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 01:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

I have reverted your move of Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Prince Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha based on a misinterpretation of WP:NC(NT). The section Monarchical titles, point 5, states: European monarchs whose rank was below that of King (e.g., Grand Dukes, Electors, Dukes, Princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. The section Other royals, point 2, does not hold as Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is firstly a sovereign title, not a substantive title. Alfred simply cannot be named as Prince Alfred because most other British princes are because he is not "owned" by his British status and he held a more exalted sovereign status. Charles 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Viscount Severn's Surname

Why do you suppose, surname of Viscount Severn would be Windsor? What can you say about the article Mountbatten-Windsor? -- Worobiew (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates

I very recently changed over the Brazilian Imperial Family template. What do you think of using that format (multiple lists) for the British princely templates? I think it makes changes easier later and allows the generations to go down the side (not the case with the Brazilians as it was more important to differentiate lines than generations). Charles 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Wallis, Duchess of Windsor

Keisha Castle Hughes most assuredly is living. Corvus cornix_talk 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 18:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Princesses of the blood

Oops! Well, now that I notice it, I really don't think will be much of a problem given that the last princess came four years ago and then four years before that. I think it's unlikely anyone will make the mistake of adding in a princess who doesn't belong without it getting caught almost immediately. Charles 12:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops for me as well. I didn't notice there was already. I noticed the British princes template, and added -ses to see if there was one for the ladies, and didn't see one, so I assumed it was lacking, so I went ahead and created the new one :) Morhange (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)