Misplaced Pages

prince philip article.

The Queen.

First, I should apologize for using an edit summary such as "seriously". It wasn't intended to be snide, as it wasn't directed to anybody, but it's the sort of thing that can be misconstrued, so I ought to have been more careful. Sorry about that.

As for the Government of Canada vs. The Crown in Right of Canada, I don't want to edit war. I also think we should figure out a standard approach, because this issue is broader than simply the infoboxes for the articles on the Parliament Buildings. I raised the issue at WP:CANTALK, and wanted to alert you to that discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't know if you noticed that I started a discussion at Talk:Centre Block, but wherever suits you is okay with me. I agree that it probably is a wider ranging issue than just these three articles, and I've actually never been convinced that my method is the most perfect, just the best that's so far available. It would be nice to work out something better. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I never even noticed the discussion at Centre Block -- I don't have it watchlisted, so I didn't see that you'd edited the talk page. It doesn't matter -- we'll figure something out. I'm a big fan of figuring out a path forward, even if I disagree with it, and implementing it consistently. --70.49.59.116 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That was me, BTW. Forgot to log in. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Re portals

Considering that portals and the likes are not links to external sources one cannot really understand why they should be there but anyhoo plase see Misplaced Pages:Layout#"See also" section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah-hah! Okay, well, that solves the mystery of where to put the portals. I'm not particularly in favour of either of the two possibilities, I merely wanted to maintain consistency. I shall know where to place them from now on, though. Thanks. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Kevin S. MacLeod

Hi. I really like the changes you made to the Kevin S. MacLeod article. They are a great improvement. It is so nice when people make things better. It is definitely the wiki way. Thanks. --Mr.Badlands (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I completely forgot to respond to this; a recent poster has just reminded me of it. I offer both my apologies for the delay and my thanks for the compliment. Best, --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Monarchy

Hello, this is User:Free The Kingdom of Tibet, and I noticed you are interested in the monarchy page. I updated the world map that states where each monarchy is and what kind of monarchy it is. I did this because I noticed there were several mistakes and misleading information:

First: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irland is not 'in union with a constitutional monarchy' it is a constitutional monarch realm of its own, therefore it should be in green instead of light green. Second: Although the status in Bhutan has changed the King is still dominant politically, so Bhutan should be labled orange instead of green. The way it is now it gives you the idea that he has just as much power as the monarches have throughout Europe today, which I dare say isn't that much power. Third: The Kingdom of Tibet, (which includes three provinces: Tsang, Amdo and Kham), although forced under administration by the Chinese still have HH The Dali Lama as their leader even though he is forbidden to enter the country and anyone possessing his picture in Tibet is subject to being arrested. People in Tibet still consider him there leader and hope that he can return to power some day in the future. So, the area of Greater Tibet a.k.a. The Kingdom of Tibet should be coloured in magenta.

(I hope I was not too wordy!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free the kingdom of tibet (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

FTKOT - I note that you're a new editor at Misplaced Pages; first off, welcome. Secondly, please don't forget to sign your posts with the four tildes (or use the button with the squiggly line at the top of your edit window). And thirdly, as you've raised most of these points at Talk:Monarchy, I'll address them there. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ted McWhinney

No, putting it only in the McWhinney article would have the effect of burying it. McWhinney is an acknowledged constitutional authority and his theory received enough press so his views do belong in the article on the debate on the monarchy at the very least. There is no direct relevance to the CCR group since there is no reference to his being a member in any source so it can be removed from there if you like. Dodge rambler (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the material and the summary of "republicanism" from the Citizens for a Canadian Republic article as it's not directly germane. Dodge rambler (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say mention of it wasn't worthy anywhere other than McWhinney's biography page; I meant that the detail of the theory be outlined on his page and other articles would link back to it from a more summarized sentence or two. This saves on needless repetition and fits within the confines of WP:UNDUE. As for the page Debate on the monarchy in Canada, I think you mistook my moving the paragraph for having deleted it. I'll see if I can dedicate some more involved time to this when I'm finished with another task that's taking up most of my focus at the moment. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all McW is a prominent constitutional scholar - not a layperson - so his views have weight. Second the paragraph is deep in the article, not in the lead - so undue weight doesn't apply. Third his view was notable enough to cause a law dean to reply. Fourth that exchange of views as part of a debate is best suited in an article on the debate over the monarchy - they are more relevant to the debate then to the details of either man's personal bio.Dodge rambler (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, his views have some weight, but this particular one has garnered little response; most reaction has come from the participants in the monarchist-republican debate, which is itself relatively minor in the scope of things. That said, it is indeed relevant to an article on that debate (I actually thought it was already mentioned in there). I'm just not 100% convinced that the details of his theory belong in said article, but, on the other hand, am not yet completely against it either. As I said, I'll have to sit on it a bit longer before I can suss something out. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tweedsmuir

About a month ago you reverted my edit to Lord Tweedsmuir's titles. Please note that the correction I made was justified. Only the title of the page should be given as John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir. That is done for specification. His correct style between his elevation to the peerage and his death was The Right Honourable The Lord Tweedsmuir. Unlike other peers, barons are always called "Lord", not just in short-hand. Take the queen for example: we use, Her Majesty The Queen, not Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom. This is verified by the page called "Forms of Address in the United Kingdom". 74.12.104.185 (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you've done the same with not a few of the Canadian Governor Generals who were British peers. I will make the proper adjustments. 74.12.104.185 (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What I did was follow on the example of the London Gazette, which, when making reference to the individual, as I recall, uses both their given name and their title. I'll admit, however, that I'm no expert on the peerage, so I'll defer this time and assume you're right and the Gazette is wrong. I will, however, say that there are a few problems with the most recent edits to these articles: firstly, post-nominal letters don't go in the list of titles; they're already covered in the list of honours. Secondly, it may not have been you who made the contrary edits, but prior to 1931, viceregal offices in the Dominion were British offices, representing the British Cabinet and not the sovereign in his/her own right as monarch of the Dominion. Thirdly, going by the Gazette again, "Privy Councilor" never forms part of someone's full title; when editing, I wondered how to handle such a thing and searched for examples, but came up only with the impression that simply the post-nominals are used.

I've started some work in rectifying these problems, but must break now to head to work. I'll try and continue later to ensure that all the Canadian GG articles are consistent. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On the Duke of Devonshire, I'll leave his viceregal titles for now. But when he succeeded to his peerage, his style was absolutely not His Grace The Right Honourable. He was The Right Honourable beforehand, being a commoner and a Privy Counsellor, but peers do not use The Right Honourable on account of being Privy Counsellors. They use one of The Right Honourable, The Most Honourable, or His/Her Grace according to their rank in the peerage. If he had been the Marquess of Devonshire, surely, we would not have had The Most Honourable The Right Honourable, or The Right Honourable The Right Honourable had he been a baron, viscount, or earl. From 1908 to when he became Governor General, he was His Grace. About the nationality of the governor generalship, I seem to have been mistaken, and you appear to have rectified my mistaken editing already. But the style during the governor generalship that you have put, His Excellency His Grace The Right Honourable, requires an authoritative citation to save it from absurdity. Same thing for Queen Victoria's son. 74.12.98.138 (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

For Bessborough while he was heir apparent to his earldom, he was not The Honourable Vere Ponsonby followed by his courtesy title, it is just the courtesy title. The Honourable is for younger sons of earls not the eldest. A holder of a courtesy viscountcy is just Viscount X, nothing else. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

R.e. courtesy titles: My apologies; I misread Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom. However, for the honorific prefixes, all former governors general of Canada have been entitled to the use of The Right Honourable both during their tenure and for life afterwards; so Devonshire's use of the style would not necessarily have been due to his membership in the UK Privy Council. Further, though His Excellency His Grace the Right Honourable does seem a bit unwieldly, why is it acceptable to have His Excellency The Right Honourable (as is current practice for styling the viceroy) but not His Grace The Right Honourable? --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellency is a mark of distinction for a representative who is not already distinguished. The styles of His/Her whatever do not correspond to offices the way Hon. and Rt. Hon. tend to - though they do not always either. For example, Excellency is also used by Spanish grandees, who have nothing to do with governors general in the British empire. As the case is, His Grace supercedes His Excellency, so the latter would be redundant, would it not? The rationale behind not having His Grace The Right Honourable or His Royal Highness The Right Honourable is more complicated. Unlike today, where the Rt. Hon. in Canada is handed out arbitrarily like candy (take Paul Martin Sr. for example), it was available to governor generals in the British empire (and to those whose offices were Canadian/whatever but who were British nationals, post 1931), specifically because of they were made members of the British Privy Council. However, since peers do not use Rt. Hon. for that purpose, peer governors general would not require Rt. Hon. That is why His Royal Highness for Connaught, and His Grace for Devonshire are to be advocated. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick question: why do the military ranks of Byng, Willingdon, Athlone, and Alexander come after Excellency during their vice-regal tenure? My understanding was that the military rank preceded everything. I remember on the page of George III's son, Ernest Augustus, before they scrapped the military rank altogether, he was, Field Marshal His Royal Highness The Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale. One other thing, in Tweedsmuir's box, why is Excellency there? It is not for any of the other GG's. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(To save space, I did not indent this.) I checked both Burke's and Debrett's on the correct style of the Duke of Connaught during his term as governor general. They both list him as His Royal Highness. This puts to rest the view that not only he, but also, the Duke of Devonshire, whose case is identical, should be styled The Right Honourable in addition. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The practice on the governors general's articles is to have the infobox state their last honorific style; hence, most say simply The Right Honourable, but as Tweedsmuir died in office, his was still His Excellency The Right Honourable. I'll keep the other parameters for styles and titles in mind in future. Cheers for your help. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Liz II's trips to Canada

Grrr, I'm still waiting for my tax rebates from all those 'royal' visits. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're just playing devil's advocate here; you know full well you wouldn't get any rebate for presidential visits, either. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's funner to pick on the monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Letter to the palace

Hi there, this is just a request for your further input concerning the letter. Although I'm not absolutely clear in my mind of the distinction you are drawing between nationality and citizenship - or rather, how it can be defined - I would like you to add these points, in your own words, in the form of a further question or questions to the draft of the letter, if you will. This is to try and cover all possible bases beforehand. Thanks. ðarkuncoll 21:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably send it on Sunday. Please let me know if you're in any way unhappy at how I've phrased the question about "nationality", or indeed any other aspect of the letter. Thanks. ðarkuncoll 23:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've expressed my opinion about the letter at Talk:Time Person of the Year. --Miesianiacal (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much

I really was upset with that interaction, and I was further disturbed that nobody seemed willing to provide a reality check, as to whether I was being a dick or not. Thank you for bothering to read through the interaction, and for confirming to me that I'm not completely insane. It seems clear from the WQA page that Roux has some issue with your contribution, but I just want to let you know that I appreciate that you took the time. Cheers. -GTBacchus 07:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No trouble, really. I was actually impressed by your calm approach and didn't want you to put that in doubt; it's a valuable asset. That said, based on my own experiences, I can't stress enough the advice that you immediately disengage with that user. He will be relentless, and has actually managed to gather a group of admins and editors who will support him no matter how much he baits and taunts. It's not worth the disruption, either to the encyclopaedia or your emotional stability. Also, I ask in advance that you forgive me if I won't involve myself any more in this particular matter; as I said, I merely didn't want to see a (rare) rational editor be unfairly knocked about. --Miesianiacal (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about me. I'm an admin myself, and I think I know how to sail well enough that this wave won't knock me out of the game. I went ahead and replied to him there, because he's been vaguely threatening me for a while, and I wish he'd just put his money where his mouth is. I was hoping for some kind of reality check from WQA, but no such luck. We'll see what happens, but I don't think this guy will be the rock that sinks my ship. If he is... I must not be much of a sailor. Take care. -GTBacchus 08:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough! :D Best of luck, --Miesianiacal (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Various King James

Hi, I note that you feel strongly enough about the titles of the Jacobite kings to have reverted my minor edit, which I'm not going to argue over - but if you are going to use both numbers shouldn't the VII be first? You might however wish to contribute to the discussion occurring at Talk:James I of England#Please move. Cheers. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Template: English and British monarchs

Do have any smelling salts? GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not any more! --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi there, just sent you a message via email. Thanks, An Infinite Loop (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation for the Prince of Wales

Per the changing of Charles' to Charles's: as you are not making any correction, and are instead merely replacing one acceptable style with your preferred altarnative, you should leave the long-standing punctuation mode alone until you have achieved a consensus for making any changes to it, rather than edit war. I've begun a discussion for you at Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales#Possessive punctuation. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are quite wrong there. It is not my preference - it is definitive correct usage. The alternative usage is only employed by those who are unaware of correct usage. Whilst this may have been acceptable in previous centuries before the advent of standard correct English usage, it should not be considered acceptable in this day-and-age - and to allow such incorrect usage is the start of the decline of the English language into the nebulous mire from whence it originated. The terminal apostrophe is only ever properly used when the s indicates plural. Charles is not plural. --JohnArmagh (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said at the discussion I earlier directed you to, WP:MOS may be the place for you to bring this up. --Miesianiacal (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Flag icon

Did you bother to look at any of the links I provided? Or did you just revert your precious little article back to your preferred version without looking. Try looking at them now - Ulster Banner, Flag of Northern Ireland, WP:FLAGCRUFT. The Ulster Banner was not the Flag of Northern Ireland in 1949. It is not the Flag of Northern Ireland today. Therefore per WP:FLAGCRUFT it should not be used. O Fenian (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahem... My main concern at my "precious little article" is consistency in its appearance; simply deleting a flag icon from one lone location disrupts that consistency. I'm not going to argue with you over what is the correct flag to use for Northern Ireland; I will only maintain that there should be a flag next to the Belfast entry. Hence, as I suggested in my last edit summary at the article, your concern should be directed towards those who created the template with the Ulster Banner as the flag for Northern Ireland, not at me for merely using a pre-made flag template. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly stating that "consistency in its appearance" is your main concern puzzles me. Shouldnt providing correct information be the main concern? Northern Ireland has no current flag. The Union Flag and the EU Flag represent Northern Ireland as a constituant but they are not the Flag of Northern Ireland. A solution to this problem has been found here. I propose that the same solution is used with respect to this issue also. Thoughts? regards --Vintagekits (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I said incorrect information was acceptable; I certainly wasn't going to thwart that other individual's efforts to get the correct NI flag in the NI flag template. I simply did not like O Fenian's adopted tone, nor did I want to get drawn into a debate on Irish issues, enough of which I've witnessed around the project to know to avoid. I had never before heard of the {{noflag}} template, and I have before seen on articles the Royal Union Flag used for NI, so I'm not really sure what's become the accepted practice across Misplaced Pages. It would be good to know if there is a policy of sorts in place, so that I can be guided by it in future. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

One is best off staying out of "Irish issues" alright, horrible little blighters they are! Havent got much time for them myself but one must show kindness I suppose. Anyways, must dash - toddle pip! TTFN! regards--Vintagekits (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, well that was helpful. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I misread you. The refs didn't back up the latter name, which is why I deleted them. They do back up the first (this shouldn't have been removed anyway). I missed your adding of "Royal" back in, correctly. My apologies. - Jarry1250  18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no worries; I did think in retrospect that where the refs were placed had caused some confusion. I only put the refs supporting the first term where I did because there's no punctuation immediately following it. I should probably have made it clearer on the talk page which ref supported which phrase. In fact, I'll do so now. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A polite request.

Could you please stay away from Arms of Canada. You cause me an enormous amount of stress, and you haven't touched the article ever before today, according to its history. I left the royalty articles so I could stay away from you, and work on heraldry stuff now. Please leave it, and me, alone. → ROUX ₪ 18:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Roux - Three points: 1) Thank you for being polite, and I think I understand your concern. 2) I'm genuinely sorry you feel the way you do, and I hope you don't take this as anything to the contrary, but, I want it to be known that I don't take responsibility for causing you to do anything. And, more to the point, 3) I actually used to edit the Arms of Canada article quite extensively in the past (between 5 June 2005 and around 10 April 2008), and it remains on my watchlist now. That said, I have avoided editing it for the last year + in order to maintain the same peace that you similarly desire. Also, heraldry is not a subject I'm very well versed in, so I've left those matters to you and others. However, I waded in there again today because something done touched on, for the first time since early 2008, what is both my main concern and area of expertise: the monarchy. Rest assured that I will continue on as I have been doing, and will remain, so long as there are no royalty-related issues, hands-off on all other matters on the page. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not enough, sorry. I have assiduously stayed away from the articles you edit on a regular basis. I did the work that got that article back to GA status. Please allow me to edit the article in peace, which means you not editing it or its talk page. → ROUX ₪ 19:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You did indeed do much good work on the article. And of course you are as free to edit in peace as any of the rest of us, Roux! We can also, though, each have our own self-imposed limitations, and I stand by mine. Best, --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, you are saying you will not stay away from the article? → ROUX ₪ 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)