User talk:DBD/Archive 9

Archives

Archive 1 (July 2005 – July 2006)
Archive 2 (August 2006)
Archive 3 (September – October 2006)
Archive 4 (November 2006 – Jan 2007)
Archive 5 (February – April 2007)
Archive 6 (May 2007)
Archive 7 (June – July 2007)
Archive 8 (August – December 2007)
Archive 9 (January – March 2008)
Archive 10 (April – June 2008)
Archive 11 (July – September 2008)
Archive 12 (October – November 2008)
Archive 13 (Dec 2008 – May 2009)
Archive 14 (June 2009 – May 2010)
Archive 15 (June 2010 – January 2011)
Archive 16 (February – July 2011)
Archive 17 (August – November 2011)
Archive 18 (Dec 2011 – January 2012)
Archive 19 (February – March 2012)
Archive 20 (April – July 2012)
Archive 21 (August – October 2012)
Archive 22 (Nov 2012 – March 2013)
Archive 23 (April – July 2013)
Archive 24 (August – November 2013)
Archive 25 (Dec 2013 – April 2014)
Archive 26 (May – October 2014)
Archive 27 (Nov 2014 – May 2015)
Archive 28 (June – October 2015)
Archive 29 (Nov 2015 – April 2016)
Archive 30 (May – November 2016)
Archive 31 (Dec 2016 – July 2017)
Archive 32 (August – October 2017)
Archive 33 (Nov 2017 – July 2018)
Archive 34 (August 2018 – May 2019)
Archive 35 (June – November 2019)
Archive 36 (Dec 2019 – June 2020)
Archive 37 (Sep 2020 – Aug 2021)
Archive 38 (Sep 2021 – June 2022)

January – March 2008

House of Windsor

What do you make of this?: [[1]]. Keeping in mind that the extinction of one line of the Dukes of Saxony meant redistribution among the others, there is no singular line of succession or heir for any of the given duchies when the dynasts are extinct. The duchy dies with the last dynast. This is currently at AN/I, since there are constant reverts, but have you ever even heard of a source which says the Gloucesters are heirs to Thuringia, Meiningen, Altenburg, etc? I've only ever encountered Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and MAYBE Royal Saxony successions containing the Gloucesters in line of succession since they are members of the still extant Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line (and for some other reason regarding Royal Saxony, which is Albertine, not Ernestine). Charles 18:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Not born with royal or noble title?

It is a rather fine point, but I believe that when it comes down to it, "Lady" is only a style and not a title. I believe that these women were all legally born as commoners and were only so styled, rather than titled. I really am not opposed to removing or changing that point, but I don't think we should make the distinction with the title of princess, because there are duchesses, countesses, etc on there as well. Perhaps a note that the British women may or may not have had styles, but any other note than the one I thought when writing it out seems rather long. Charles 09:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essex discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description: A project for the county of Essex, England

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Chris 05:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Maybe you could try Category:Wikipedians from Essex and also place notices e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject England. Simply south (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"of Wales"

I don't have a specific source, but I recall a discussion of the subject some years ago at alt.talk.royalty where quotes were made from the Royal Gazette, or whatever, from that period and demonstrated that it wasn't used. See this old thread, particularly (jlk7e is me, in my younger, more ignorant days). In that thread, François Velde points to some contemporary sources (with links) that don't use "of Wales", and says that that was only used starting with Edward VII's children. Do you have any sources that assert the contrary? john k (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, I am sure, intended this as a reply to your post on his talk page. I have copied it over from WP:BROY[2]. Perhaps your signature needs to be a little more clear on where it leads... ;) Charles 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Feminism

I'm leaving notes for those of you interested in a Feminism project/portal. There's a discussion at WT:GS#Portal proposal over some ideas. Thanks. Phyesalis (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Palace

Hi. I'm not sure we have enough info for articles on the episodes, but perhaps we could produce a decent List of episodes page. Although, the plot still shouldn't be too detailed, as you say. I think a List of episodes is the best plan for the time being.--UpDown (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting back to you on this--I must have got two messages at the same time and only read the last one. I agree with UpDown -- there isn't really enough information for separate episode articles. What I'd suggest is maintaining the episode list within the main article until the series is over. Then move the list of episodes to List of The Palace episodes (creating it then of course), and summarising all eight episodes in the "plot" section of the main article. Brad (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

top gear races

thanks for re directing alba. BERTIE LOST FAN (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Smith (The Bill)

Please stop changing the succession box on Dale Smith (The Bill). I researched the succession boxes before putting them on every characters page for ranks above constable. Your edits to my origonal post have made it more difficult to understand. He may have retained his sergeants rank but in 2007 his rank was actually acting ispector which is different, and needs a seperate time space that does not overlap with the sergeant time. Mark (talk) 13:10, 22 Jaunuary 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi, how is it that you ended up as a mediator on the 24 merger nonsense? Are you an administrator? TunaSushi (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being an administrator does not matter as any user who is is part of the mediation cabal can take up a case. Administrators are not gods and responsible for every single piece of wikipedia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to relax Lucy. Tuna isn't attacking anyone. She's simply asking a question, which she has every right to do. Angelriver (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given an answer to the question which I also have every right to do . Also for once assume good faith.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy, you take everything as a personal assault against you. You should try taking your own advice from time to time and assume good faith where other editors are concerned. Angelriver (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you both back to the mediation page, my talk page is not the place. D B D 13:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. Angelriver (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your efforts. TunaSushi (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you formally close the mediation as the issue appears to have been resolved with a deadline of February 25 being mooted.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's "mooted", whatever that means. I'm still interested in DBD's input. TunaSushi (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. Wasn't that the whole point of this thing to begin with? Angelriver (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Jesus had Wikipedia in his time, he wouldn't forsake his brethren during Lent. TunaSushi (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Earls in the peerage of England

A tag has been placed on Template:Earls in the peerage of England requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

top gear music

Thank you for your help. I have made an account and searched the site, but i can't find the page for the american special episode. Do you know the url for the 'whats the song' section for that episode? --Simpsons fan 66 23:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. I'll leave a message and see if they can help me. --Simpsons fan 66 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw it on TV, I don't have the DVD. --Simpsons fan 66 23:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you? --Simpsons fan 66 23:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that isn't it. I downloaded that song and it isn't the one I heard on the show. The song I'm looking for was also on the Seven Wonders of the Industrial World documentary, if that helps. --Simpsons fan 66 00:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coronets

I think I might have gotten Prince Andrew's coronet wrong. My source stated that the coronet I have for Prince Andrew was the coronet for the Royal Dukes, but an anonymous user made an edit to Crown (heraldry) that makes more sense. I haven't changed it, because I don't actually have a source that says that. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to believe Prince William's would not change until his father ascends. This image of Prince Andrew's arms correlates with the anonymous user's version of things. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Buffy-adam.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Buffy-adam.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Buffy-anointed.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Buffy-anointed.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Princess Michael of Kent.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Princess Michael of Kent.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:British viscounts

A tag has been placed on Template:British viscounts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of this. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the template {{BRoy-stub}} has been moved back to its correct name of {{UK-royal-stub}}, per the decision at WP:SFD. The current name is in line with the standardised naming of stub templates, as explained at WP:WSS/NG. The name of BRoy-stub has been deleted rather than left as a redirect, since it is both ambiguous and non-intuitive, as well as being at odds with the standard naming conventions. In future, if you wish to change the name of a stub type, please propose the change via either WP:SFD or WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 09:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Princess Royal

Just to let you know, and I know it's a small niggle, but, the style 'Princess Royal' is granted rather than created (It's about the method through which the Sovereign instructs people to call her PR...). Cheers! D B D 10:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I've corrected my edit. Xn4 11:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Waterloo Road

Yeah, I noticed that the table is all messed up this morning when I was viewing it (for some confirmation that Rachel/Davina is okay - alas, it was not confirmed). Still, I'm not sure whether I'll be able to fix it - I've never formed a table on Wikipedia before, I've only edited the content within it. However, I will have a little fiddle with it, but I hope there is someone more competant that can fix it. Sorry in advance for any disappointments - I hope you get to rid this before you Lent! :D Mattpitt1991 (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles revisited

Hello, since you commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles, I thought you might like to know that it is again up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles (2nd nomination). Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notification

William IV of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Chwech 00:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]