User talk:Miesianiacal/January-March 2009

Just a few notes...

A few notes on different bits and bobs you may be interested in...

Monarchies in the Americas has now been reviewed. You can view the comments on the talk page. I usually place ticks or some kind of note behind points I have addressed, so everything is generally more organised...
Discussions have been going on about why the UK is being listed as a constitutional monarchy and the rest of the Commonwealth realms being listed just as Commonwealth realms. We have several proposals but we would welcome your input also. I was contacted and asked to contact somebody "knows a lot about the subject"...which I believe you do, given our long discussions! ;) The link is here, if you're interested.

Best, --Cameron * 14:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchies in Europe

In such a short summary, why should republicanism be so prevalent? --Cameron * 21:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not saying it should be. I only wonder which version it was you intended to edit: my proposed one or the one that exists now; I had meant for people to do the former. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've reverted anyway. :) --Cameron * 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. But if you want to remove that sentence from my proposed paragraph, do feel free! --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have now done so. I fear the personal union thing may be starting up again here... Believe it or not I actually asked the question at the Queen's mailbox. Obviously due to the amount of questions asked, not all of them are answered but if it were to get answered...I for one would be over the moon...and the dispute would be over! ;) --Cameron * 22:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... I wonder if some would argue that Buckingham Palace is an unreliable source! As for the Monarchies in Europe paragraph: er, I think you did the same thing over again. I could fix it to what I think you're trying to get at, but I worry about revert restrictions. Perhaps if I had your permission...? --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm so clumsy, not to mention muddle-headed. "You hereby have my permission to make the edit in my name". :) I'd laugh so much if it actually got answered! Regards, --Cameron * 22:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as requested. I rather feel like your viceregal delegate now. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, as long as I'm royalty...not sure I could put up with all the work though... ;) --Cameron * 22:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our reviewer was kind enough to add fact tags here. I've added a few but I'd be extremely grateful if you'd add the ones to the sections you created/expanded. Thanks! ;) --Cameron * 18:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthems

Good edit to get the sections right - thanks

Thanks, and no worries. I hope it can get finessed further. --Miesianiacal (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name

Hiya Mies. Have you chosen your moniker, in tribute to that German architect? GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you have, I just noticed the stamp. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got it! He's one of my favourites. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of portraits in the Centre Block

Please check that I got the history right, thanks --Enric Naval (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postnominals

The small postnominals were only being used for Canadians and only then for certain ones. I felt some consistency was in order. This section of the MOS also shows the postnominals as full-sized in the lead.--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 08:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were? To be honest, I've never kept a tally of which articles used them and which didn't, but it seemed to be more than just Canada related ones. Of course, I'm all for consistency, and I do see that the MoS shows full sized font being used for post-nominal letters, but does that mean using the small font is wrong? I find the large font to be distracting and graphically messy, especially when there are long strings of letters. I'm evidently not the only person who thinks that way, but perhaps we're in the minority. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never once seen them outside of articles on Canadian figures. I'm not saying they're not out there, though. (Although I'm hardly one to talk, given that I have them in my own signature!). I find the small font to be similarly distracting outside of lists (where I think the large font is distracting).--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		In recognition of your tireless contributions in the monarchy related area. Even the small ones (such as fixing my messy references) don't go unnoticed. Thanks! ;) Best, Cameron * 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a peer review here (in preparation for an FA review) and was told that "All words in some citation titles are capitalized while others are not". So it look's like I'll be joining you in cleaning up some refs, sometime soon. Talk about being fussy, eh? ;) --Cameron * 18:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...of the United Kingdom

Please see Template talk:Infobox Royalty/doc for the discussion I referred to. You obviously didn't go through my edit history, because this was one of my recent edits. I also referred to these discussions: discussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3, discussion 4, discussion 5, and countless other discussions which you can find in arhives of Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. All those discussions confirmed that majority doesn't perceive a POV in listing Elizabeth II as "of the United Kingdom" in the articles, so the fact that you do is irrelevant. As I can see, you have participated in those discussion and you are well aware of their outcome.

I don't see any need to explain my edits, because they have been explained by long and innumerable discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm afraid I neither agree with your take nor appreciate your tone. I did not notice that talk you've pointed to above - hence, I asked for you to direct me to it - and do not see there where the agreement was reached to make the changes you have made. In fact, some of your final comments actually align with my position; you stated: "Wikipedia should retain neutral point of view and treat him equally as King of the UK and King of Hanover." This leaves me wondering why you'd then go and do something completely contrary to that NPOV stance where it was unnecessary to do so. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, majority agrees with my take. I apologize if my tone of voice (or typing) insulted you. I just thought it was appropriate considering your tone in your first message adressed to me. Anyway, you have misunderstood the discussion. I wanted to remove the pipes from links in issue field, father field and mother field - e.g. [[George IV of the United Kingdom]] and [[Ernest Augustus I of Hanover]] instead of [[George IV of the United Kingdom|George IV]] and [[Ernest Augustus I of Hanover]]. DBD and I agreed to use pipes only to avoid redundancy and there is no redundancy in Charles, Prince of Wales article infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware I was rude in any way when I first contacted you; I'm sorry it came out that way. I don't, however, see the results of the discussions at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in the same manner as you, nor do I perceive the relevance of them to any conversation about the infoboxes. I do offer my support to the quest for consistency, but am simultaneously concerned about misleading POV issues that may crop up - thus, I see the strength in your desire to treat the Georges' position as King of the UK no more favourably than their position as King of Hanover. Why, if we both agree on that, is [[George IV of the United Kingdom|George IV]] and [[Ernest Augustus I of Hanover|Ernest Augustus I]] not acceptable? (You may already have noticed I've begun a more public discussion about this at Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh; we can continue this there, or I can remove that talk page section and continue here; I'm easy either way.) --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've responded there; I will continue with that discussion. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember these United Kingdon -vs- 16 are equal disputes. I know ..of the United Kingdom, sets your hair on fire, but that's what the Queen's article is called. Anyways, I'll let you & the others work it out at Philip's Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France & Portugal

Hiya Mies. Do ya have any interest in the French & Portugese monarchies (which are now defunct, ha ha)? There's discussion at Charles VII of France concerning his reign & at Maria II of Portugal & Miguel of Portugal concerning their reigns. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've a passing interest, but I don't know terribly much about the subjects. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal website face lift

Have you seen it yet? Notice the top left corner uses the phrase "Commonwealth realm". Evidently we didn't make it up after all! Also the Canada section has been expanded greatly. 'Symbols and ceremonies of Canada', 'History of the Monarchy of Canada' and 'The Queen's role in Canada' should be brilliant to use for references! ;) I'd still rather like to see royal.gov.ca up and running in 2009, though. :) And a corporeal maple crown, while you're at it. I'd pay to see that! Best, Cameron * 12:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS:The Canada section has confirmed that Canada is a kingdom in its own right here. --Cameron * 13:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even when they added the Commonwealth realms section some time ago, I thought the content looked vaguely familiar; at least, how it was divided into sections. But now I wonder even more how much HM's webmasters have been looking here for inspiration! Well, it's nice to think they have, anyway. ;) --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it says BRITISH MONARCHY. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What else would they call it? --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be the Commonwealth realms Monarchy. Afterall, are they not all equal? Basically, I'm just pointing out that, right or wrong the United Kingdom is presented as the chosen name. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see "United Kingdom" anywhere in the web page's header; it says "British" on my screen. But, first off, the website is hosted in, and paid for by, the UK. It is therefore the website of the British monarchy, not the "Commonwealth realms monarchy" (should such a designation exist, though I wish it did). Canada has its own monarchy website (as sad looking as it is), and you don't see "British monarchy" on there, do you? ;) --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've removed the pipelink at Philip's Infobox. I don't do this to cause a stir, but to make a point. PS: I won't complain if I'm reverted there. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you're encouraged to make points, GD. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're considering pipelinking for Elizabeth II's childrens Infoboxes? For that matter, other royal bio Infoboxes? I won't grump about it. As long as they're in sync. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Ya forgot Anne & Edward. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the midst of doing them now; the internet connection here is shit today... grr. Hence, I'm a little cranky. And slow. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He he, sorry about the poking. A monarchist needs to have a republican around, to keep one on one's toes. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked SquekBox to reconsider. I don't agree with pipelinking, but I prefer the 5 articles Infoboxes to be 'in sync'. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be off-line. I went ahead & restored the pipelink, anyways. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well answer your observation here too. My reply is more or less that of Miesianiacal: The website is hosted by the British government (royal.gov.uk), hence the title. Also, Buckingham Palace employees serve the Queen of the UK, they aren't permitted to act on behalf of the Canadian monarchy. In response to Miesianiacal: I too wish there were such a term as 'Commonwealth realm monarchy', although I'd prefer slightly more elegant! That way the monarchy can become supranational while the governments remain separate. ;) Best, --Cameron * 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall though, no matter how ya stretch or contense it, British monarchy is the more internationally recognized. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I don't see why that's relevant. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could debate on the relevancy or irrelevancy of it. But, we ain't gonna convince each other of the other's view. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's only as long as one of us refuses to capitulate to the fact that I am right! :D

(outdent) Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD nominator has been blocked

Thankfully, the fellow who's been vandalising the Elizabeth II & Charles articles, has been blocked. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michaëlle Jean

Just because other GG articles have both the succession box and the GG template doesn't make it right. Please review Wikipedia:Avoid template creep if you are uncertain about this. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to post a comment at Talk:Michaëlle Jean about this. It's not that I have any particular attachment to the succession boxes at the foot of many biographical articles; rather, I imagine that it would be confusing for readers to see some governors general articles with a succession box and others without. In other words, the articles on Canadian governors general should either all have succession boxes, or they all shouldn't. It's merely for consistency. --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've moved this to Talk:Michaëlle Jean/Archive 2#Succession box, if that's of no bother. --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Apology

At Talk:Kevin Rudd, you said:

(snip)it's acceptably honest if we say something along the lines of "the apology was commonly referred to in the media and elsewhere as a 'national apology'." What we cannot do is pretend the apology was unequivicably one on behalf of every single Australian (minus, somehow, every Aboriginal one); to do so would be ascribing a meaning to a term that is, as Merbabu pointed out, vague at best. --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no logical fallacy if you consider the main principle of the apology; that succeeding generations bear a responsibility for the actions of their ancestors. Also, the parliament of Australia does indeed represent every citizen of Australia; hence the term representative democracy. Whether it be ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, international treaties, trade agreements or whatever, the parliament frequently enters into agreements and makes statement of principle on behalf of all Australians. Australians must vote, and they must abide by motions and laws passed in parliament. --Surturz (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your points at Talk:Kevin Rudd. Cheers, --Miesianiacal (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons in the International reaction to the 2009 Victorian bushfires article

Please see Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Victorian_bushfires. Merbabu still insists that we should not use flag icons on this page. Others consider otherwise. Please observe the discussion and provide your views, which now has gone to a RFC. Kransky (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:LeBlanc-arms.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:LeBlanc-arms.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. — neuro^(talk) 06:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Prince Charles

To be perfectly honest I'm astounded they're actually considering creating an actual article on the subject! Hey, I must get round to writing HM The Queen's personal views on Corgis...

PS:Do that to my talk page again and I'll have you reported! ;) --Cameron * 20:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I never knew I was a natural spammer! Now I know how to get someone to deposit my Nigerian client's $34,000,000 inheritance... :D --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

;) --Cameron * 12:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reverting ref list on Alexander article

I would suggest you take a look at the layout for articles such as Operation Epsom that has passed the FAC; inline citations and notes should be split from the biblogaphy/referance list etc. Also see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Cheers :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Alexander

Hi. I've started a discussion to establish a consensus on formatting References for this article here. I would very much appreciate hearing your views. Regards. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 10:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:World Monarchies.png

I thought you may be interested in being informed of the following debate and may want to take part in it: [1]. --Know zilla 06:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]