User talk:Lord Emsworth

attn: Lord Emsworth

Hi. Even after extensive editing of an article we do not own them in the fasion of a dictator. As Wales said in a recent talk [1], "Basically what we say about a revert is that, a revert is slapping somebody in the face. Basically, sort of traditional in the old movies with the white gloves [...] it's not really hitting them, but it's an insult to revert something". That said, there are practical reasons why MLA format suits the encyclopedia well. The first is that it provides the audience with an indicator as to the last time the page was working via the "Retrieved" section. The next is that it provides the user a copyright date, which informs our audience as to the age of the information to be found on the page. In addition, it shows who the author is, who the publisher is if appropriate, and it also looks professional. Now, if you prefer APA format and it is able to provide all of this information to our audience I think that is ok. However, your links are currently simple hyperlinks and are not carrying nearly as much meta-information as they could. This is very important. So please either format the links properly in APA format so that they carry as much meta-information as possible, or re-revert my edit.

1. Mingus, Brian (2005). Jimmy Wales lecture at Stanford University on 2/9/2005 (http://www.br1an.net/2005/02/jimmy-wales-lecture-at-stanford.html). Retrieved April 2, 2005.

--Alterego 02:13, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Silly vandalism to royal articles, please help

Ooohhh noooo, I can't stand it... 69.157.180.67 has been having a lovely time inserting "His/Her Majesty" and "His Eminence" and such stuff at the head of a great pile of royal etc. articles! I reverted Charles II, that I'm watching, and then I clicked on the anon's contributions... I almost wish I hadn't. I'm sorry, but I just can't face fixing them all, I'm hoping you can. ( I have written a note on the anon's talk page.) Best, --Bishonen|Talk 07:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Earls of Arundel

Some of those are having a go at making sure that Wikipedia covers all topics other major encyclopedias do. We found that one major encyclopedia has an article about Thomas Fitzalan, 5th Earl of Arundel, 11th Earl of Surrey. Our article about the same guy is at Thomas FitzAlan, 12th Earl of Arundel. Now Earl of Arundel does mention some problems with the numbering - e.g. some people don't count the first 5, but I don't see how to reconcile 12th and 5th between the two encyclopedias. Are you in a position to check our articles are error-free? Or could you recommend someone who could? Many thanks, Pcb21| Pete 14:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The men we have listed as 6th and 7th earls are very often not counted, because they were not recognized as earls in their lifetimes. So, the counting starts with the one we have as 8th, sometimes. Medieval peerage numbering is extremely non-uniform. john k 15:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duchess of Cornwall

The article is at Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall - and I understand you agree that that is where it should be. We need to follow Wikipedia style, which is to refer to the title of the article in the first sentence, preferably as the first words. Therefore we must call here the Duchess of Cornwall first. (Also, everyone else is calling her that - it's not for Wikipedia to go out on a limb with a different style - we should just report what everyone else is saying.)

I note also that the first paragraph notes that she is technically the Princess of Wales, and it seems sensible to refer to that there.

Finally, please note that, if we end up keep reverting each other, you will run out of reverts before me - I'd rather not have to go there. Kind regards, jguk 12:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just stop this

You are being disruptive now! Everyone is calling her "Duchess of Cornwall" first and foremost. Arguing otherwise will be contrary to NPOV and NOR policies. Desist! jguk 12:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As noted above, I think it is appropriate to note that she is technically the Princess of Wales in the first paragraph. But on first mention we should use the name that everyone is using for her - which is also the article title. Anything more is POV (just as MacKinley's question in the Commons was deliberately there to kick up some fuss), jguk 12:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen the formulation "The Princess Charles, the Duchess of Cornwall". The Royal Family's own website just uses the formulation "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall" - which admittedly is a different style than that adopted by the Kents, for example, but that's the formulation that is being used - so that's what we should use. If this changes, then we would then have to change to reflect that change, jguk 12:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My point is that we should use terms that people actually use. By all means note technicalities somewhere, but the most prominent terms should be those that are in real everyday use, jguk 12:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we were to use all her titles, we'd have a pretty cumbersome first sentence. Best to start off with what everyone calls her - which is the same as what the article title is (and we're agreed that it's the right article title). Note the details after the first sentence, jguk 12:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Order of Precedence in Scotland

I see that you've reversed one of my edits adding the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to the order of precedence for ladies in Scotland. The office has in the past been held by woman (Lady Fraser), and she would have held precedence as Lord High Commissioner during the tenure of her office. So I can't see why you have deleted this entry.--George Burgess 19:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help clarifying two nobles

I'm in the process of writing an article on Crathie and Crathie Kirk, and I read (in [1] (http://www.visitdunkeld.com/crathie.htm)) that Edward VII donated two medallions in honour of the "Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and of Princess Victoria, Queen of Prussia". Would I be correct in thinking these two people really are his sister Princess Victoria, Princess Royal and brother Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? I'm afraid I can't find documentation for a date of the endowment or any other source better than the one quoted above. Thanks. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kibbutzing into Emsworth's space, again (why does nobody come to me with peerage questions?), but it would seem likely that this is correct. The link you point to says that they were donated "in memory" of the Duke and the Queen, and, indeed, Alfred died in 1900 and Victoria in 1901, so this would make sense in terms of Edward being king. john k 23:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is ironic that individuals ask me when there are far more knowledgible people like you (and formerly Proteus). -- Emsworth 23:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks both for helping unfankle the bizantine complexities of the Windsor family. I confess I did go to Proteus first, and was saddened to find he's left. Perhaps there should be a wikipedia:domain experts page that lists who to go to in order to ask questions about a given topic. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 00:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Camilla

I don't know, this is a particularly irritating thing, because there are a number of questions at issue. Personally, I think it would be best to have the first part be "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, styled HRH The Duchess of Cornwall." I also think that the name "Camilla Parker-Bowles" should be mentioned somewhere in the intro, since that is how she is still best known. I'm not sure how to even do a vote, since there's a bunch of stuff at issue, I think. john k 22:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on your 50th FA. (I am assuming that Palace of Westminster would pass - which I believe would). JuntungWu 14:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My I extend mine, too?

You keep proving yourself an invaluable contributor.

Thank you.

James F. (talk) 15:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. I owe a recent quiz bowl victory to your peerage articles. :-) User:Rdsmith4/Sig 23:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Rank the following in order of precendence: Earl, Baron, Duke, Marquess, Viscount" or something like that. As this was US high school quiz bowl, it isn't terribly esoteric stuff, but it did happen to be the tiebreaking question. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 00:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas I (the Great)

I see that you are the user who changed the article on Pope Nicholas I to refer to his being titled "Great", which is in question (and now of more interest after the death of JPII). Many people think only Pope Gregory I and Pope Leo I deserve that title. Do you remember what it was which made you think that he deserved that title? Can you offer a source? GreetingsEarthling 07:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you would mind giving your sources for the title "The Great" for Pope Nicholas I as I can find no reference for this and it also impacts on the Pope John Paul II article. Most sources I have read do not give him this title and so it is therefore controversial--File Éireann 10:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both GreetingsEarthling and File Éireann, if you disagree with "the Great" and cannot find it sourced be bold and remove it. If Emsworth disagrees with your action, he will present a reasonable source and it may be reinserted. — Oldak Quill 14:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments into references

Sorry, I had already made an edit by the time I got your message. I hope you don't mind my describing the references in this way, I think that when it's a description on the reference rather than just a link to a particular section then it helps readers to know which reference they get for further information on their point of interest.

P.S. I've come up with one more objection, lack of coverage of the grounds, but I'm putting a short section in (probably with red links for now) which will partly cover it. Mozzerati 15:42, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Papal conclaves template

Hi Em,

Sorry if you were unhappy with the revertion of your removal of the template. I agree that whomever placed it placed it wrongly. I agree the list should be removed. The fact that the list in the template only goes back to 1800 and no further is simply temporary. That is as far my research has gone. I intend to do articles on earlier conclaves. As I do the dates will be adjusted to incorporate them. 1800 seemed a handy cut-off point for the first batch of articles. (Indeed while I started most of them I had the pleasure of finding when I logged in that other as of yet unstarted articles had been written by other wikipedians. While the standards of some of those ones started by others wasn't always great (the academic in me always wants to see a certain consistency of quality and style) they are at least a beginning.

Unfortunately for reasons beyond my control I cannot correct the papal election article tonight. (I'm finishing some extra bits in the U2 article and then going to bed!) But I intend to do it on Tuesday night. I do think it is worth putting in the template straight away. I think such templates help create a certain visual unity to a set of articles and even with the (for the moment) surviving list also is worth having. I'll get my editing claws into the article hopefully tomorrow. Slán. FearÉIREANN 00:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HELP

Please unblock me (User:Fish Supper).

"Jayjg" has blocked me claiming I have violated 3RR on Historicity of Jesus, which I haven't edited once!!!.

And if he is talking about Jesus, then he has blocked me without blocking User:Slrubenstein as well, who made 4 more reverts than me!!!, like he is corrupt and biased or something.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Fish_Supper. User is also suspected of being a sockpuppet of banned User:CheeseDreams. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

References for Peerage

Do you have some good resources available that you can use to reference that article? It's a shame to have it have none, and I'd like to clear off as many as possible from my list of featured articles without references. I'm assuming you'd have some around that you've used for other articles and could add appropriately to this one. Inline citations would be ideal, but some at the end would be better than none. Thanks - Taxman 23:37, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Most excellent, thank you. - Taxman 14:55, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Papabile

I notice that you just added some duplicated material from the speculation-about-the-2005-conclave article (which desperately needs to be recast in the past tense no matter what User:Jtdirl says) into the Papabile article.This makes it enormously more difficult for me to add material that I had expected to add later this year which would properly precede the material you added (I can NOT cut-and-paste,interpolating requires me to retype by hand everything below what I add and certain characters are not available to me).Any reason you think it important for this material to be in two places?

Just learned from your user page that you're sixteen...had not realized that!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.Basically,once Pope Benedict XVI names some cardinals (within a year) I'd like to keep a running list of apparent papabili,changing over time with retirements,promotions,deaths,etc...the time is not yet,but that duplicated material would have to move to make room.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 00:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles

In view of your outstanding efforts to add to and maintain the corpus of featured articles on Wikipedia - 50 out of 580 featured articles, nearly 10% of the total and roughly 3 times the nearest challenger - you are hereby my hero of the day and here is a gold star (I hope you won't take offence at being awarded an ex-Soviet honour). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

William III of England

Before you revert any edits, read Talk:William III of England#House and House of Orange-Nassau. There you will see that W3 >was< of the House of Orange Nassau. Anyway, the edit now seems to be about where I put it. MH 18:29, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

New invisible notes system

Hi and congratulations on getting your 50th featured article. Don't let the pedants get you down. But, to help you deal with us, I have a new system of invisible notes. Please see Template talk:inote. Would you be willing to use it for inline references? Ideally reference name / page number & possibly comment. That would help with verification. Mozzerati 13:30, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm only really here on a trial run, though, to see if I can cope with WP without tearing my hair out. :-) Proteus (Talk) 17:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Titling query

Hello, Emsworth, as Wikipedia's foremost guru on style and titles, I hope you can assist us with a discussion we've been having at Talk:Stanley Bruce, 1st Viscount Bruce over the correct title of the page. Firstly, should it be 1st Viscount Bruce or 1st Viscount Bruce of Melbourne? Secondly, given that Bruce was not ennobled to after the end of his Prime Ministerial career, is it appropriate that his page be titled with his noble title at all? My reading of the policy at Names and Titles was that PM's should be under their names during their Prime Ministership, not under any subsequent names. Cheers, Slac speak up! 01:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, Emsworth. Thanks for your vote at my adminship nomination. I appreciate the support. Cheers! — Trilobite (Talk) 14:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

various stuff

I noticed your to do list - does it deal with putting succession boxes at the bottom of those people's articles? If so, I have a duplicate, it seems, at User:Ugen64/British Government.

Also - have you decided on a first choice for university? I am simply curious :) ugen64 22:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't think you had decided - surely you would have good chances wherever you apply? Anyway, I digress. A list like the one you propose would be handy, although I'm a bit worried that people will stumble onto that page and start putting up succession boxes using the wrong format and such, then cross them off and confuse us all. But perhaps I'm only paranoid... ugen64 22:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... we could use yours, as it's way more complete than mine. Are you putting all of the offices a person held in succession boxes, or only the office that you're crossing off the list? ugen64 23:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peerages

My Lord, I gather from the debate about Stanley Bruce that we have a rule that peerage titles are not to be used in article headings when the person was better known by their pre-peerage name. In that case you might like to consider moving John Forrest, 1st Baron Forrest of Bunbury, since he was Sir John Forrest for most of his public life and was only given his peerage shortly before his death. On the other hand there is another John Forrest currently in the Australian House of Reps so there may be a disambiguation issue. Adam 07:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The situation with Forrest is very complicated. He was never actually a peer - he was told he was to be created one and on his way to the UK to claim his title he died, before the title had actually been created. (And the title was to be "Baron Forrest", not "Baron Forrest of Bunbury" - the opposite of Lord Bruce of Melbourne's situation.) He is sometimes referred to as "Lord Forrest", but he never actually was that. (Also, the rule is not that the peerage is not to be used if they are better known by their pre-peerage name, but that it is not to be used if they are absolutely always referred to without it - it's not simply a matter of which is more common.) Proteus (Talk) 11:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• In that case the Forrest article should be moved. (Question: At what point in the ennobling process does a person actually become a peer?)
• On your second point: if the rule is as you say, then a lot of the articles without the title ought to have one. As I have said elsewhere, Stanley Bruce was and is frequently called Lord Bruce, and Anthony Eden (for example) is certainly sometimes refered to as the Earl of Avon. Adam 13:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To answer your first question, I believe that a person becomes a peer when the letters patent are actually issued and sealed. -- Emsworth 13:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of the rule is that, basically, if the person was only made a peer after retirement, and their whole public life was spent without a title, we don't use it. Also, authors and so forth who are better known by the name they write under, and so forth. But people like Disraeli, who is better known as Disraeli, but also sometimes Beaconsfield, get the peerage title. john k 14:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is not what Proteus said above. Could the three of you come up with a definitive ruling on this? Adam 00:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Article I

I have reverted your edit to the intro of Article I of the United States Constitution because, unfortunately, it is just wrong. I invite you to read the Constitution and see what the 4th clause of Article I, Section 9 actually says before you edit this paragraph again. Thanks. RussBlau 17:37, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was the one who was wrong. I made the error of relying on the Wikisource text of the Constitution, which was not properly divided into clauses. (I've fixed that.) When I referred to my printed copy, I realized my error. RussBlau 17:49, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • No problem, we all make mistakes. -- Emsworth 17:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wives of peers

Is Edith Vane-Tempest-Stewart, Marchioness of Londonderry the correct formulation? I'm amazed she has no article, but maybe I have her title wrong. Adam 00:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Your Page

• Just a quick question, what are the asterisked articles? The ones that have been on the main page? Harro5 (talk • contribs) 01:12, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Sceptre with the Cross

Hi, just wanted to leave a note in case its not on your watchlist; since you created the article, had a question when you get a chance, thanks. Stbalbach 03:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

hello

Greetings, your Lordship. I recently suggested, on the Talk:Buckingham Palace page, that we create a series of articles on the various positions at the Palace and at Windsor Castle, such as Fendersmith, Timekeeper, and so on. It struck me that you'd be a perfect person to work on these, and I'm wondering if you have any ideas on how to organize them. Exploding Boy 21:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

head of state

You may want to look at Government of Australia. One user is intent on claiming that the Governor-General is the head of state. Others have disagreed but to no avail. User:Adam Carr is convinced at this stage that the user is a troll. I am suspicious. Independent observers would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 00:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If you are a sixteen year old user in the United States then I am a banana. JPF 17:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thai titles

He's certainly exceedingly well-informed for a 16yo, but I always believe what people say about themselves here unless I have evidence to the contrary.

What I came here to say was: My Lord, do you have an opinion on whether Maha Vajiralongkorn ought to be moved to Vajiralongkorn, Crown Prince of Thailand? What form do we use for other Crown Princes? Your comments at the Talk page welcome. Adam 02:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stars behind your featured articles

Good afternoon, Mylord! ;-) What do the little stars in the list of your featured articles mean? For example "Article One of the United States Constitution*". Greetings from Germany --slg 15:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Did you know that you were mentioned in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung last December?)

I believe they're the ones that have appeared as the daily featured article on the main page, but I could be wrong. Proteus (Talk) 17:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proteus is correct; those are the articles that have appeared on the main page. -- Emsworth 17:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

templates

User:SimonP is up to his old tricks over templates and categories. He has now proposed deleting Template:Crowns on the template for deletion page.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion) Going by his past antics on Category:Westminster System[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Leader_of_the_Opposition&diff=13853691&oldid=13849832) and Template:Commonwealth Realms [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom#Templates) he's trying to delete a template that pulls all the articles on the topic together, then he'll start subcategorising all the articles and we'll end up with a complicated, user-unfriendly mess of a category. Your opinions and observations would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 21:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Titles

Someone just created several pages like Lord Lieutenant of Argyll and Bute -that one with just one unwikified entry. I thought you would be the one to know if they are useful or improvable. Rmhermen 13:44, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Use of inote rather than HTML comments

Hi; I like your inline references in United States Senate, but I've seen that you have put them into HTML comments. I wonder if you would mind if I convert them to inote based notes. This just puts {{inote|<your reference here>}} instead of <!--<your reference here>-->. Inotes don't show anything at all, so there is no difference for the reader of the article. What they do, however, is record a link to the article in the wikipedia database (e.g. what links here from Template:inote) which will mean that later, when a configurable notes system is generated, or when the Fact and reference checkers are going through articles, it will be easy to update those articles automatically. Could you consider using inote in future? Mozzerati 22:28, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

This is Milesli. If you don't like my modification on the Order of the Bath page, whould you please also undo my handiwork on the Order of St. Michael and St. George and Order of the British Empire pages. Thanks :-)

British Orders

Sorry Lord Emsworth - I've undone my handiwork, so you don't have to undo it for me. Thanks. Milesli

The Queen's Guard

My Lord,

This is a bit of an odd question, but do you know what happens to someone who touches a member of the Queen's Guard outside Buckingham Palace? I have a friend who just returned from the UK who says that her tour guide warned her that, should she touch one, she'd be bayonetted in the foot. Could this possibly be true?

Yours, Wally 21:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found that highly unlikely myself. Although I suppose it's possible — after all, the Guardsman could've been a Scot. ;) Wally 23:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question as to precedence

My Lord,

I recently was looking at the page for Frances Davidson, the Viscountess Reading (by marraige), who was created a life peer as Baroness Northchurch in her own right. When such a situation arises — a woman who is wife of a peer and a peeress of lower rank in her own right — by which title is she to be addressed?

Also, I was wondering about the policy regarding pages for titles created only once and held by only one person. I merged the page Marquess Curzon of Kedleston with George Curzon, as he was the only one to hold the title; that was reverted, and after some dialogue I seemed to discover that what I was doing perhaps was not standard practice, as I'd thought. Is it proper to merge the title page with singular holders, or is it not? If so, is this a well-defined standard on the Wiki? If not, why?

That's what I've been doing in the past, and intend to do in the future. Having pages for single holders is just messy, when the titles themselves obviously do not deserve entries. Wally 03:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Royal consorts and monarchs