User talk:DBD/Archive 10

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)

April – June 2008

Sub-articles for Line of succession to the British Throne[edit]

Special:PrefixIndex/Line of succession to the British Throne has two articles you wrote that are now obsolete. Someone else tried to speedy-delete both of them but since they weren't the author the requests were declined. See also User talk:Davidwr#Special:PrefixIndex/Line of succession to the British Throne. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userbadges[edit]

I don't quite understand the reason for these, nobody is using them.--Otterathome (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually only just noticed them and I think they look pretty cool actually :). Might look at using one or two of them. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're a concept I've never really publicised... It just struck me that userboxes are sometimes overlarge, cumbersome and long-winded... Take 'em or leave 'em, it's fine by me! D B D 17:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to include one, and design two others - they are now being modelled on my user page :). I like the concept of them though, and agree that most userboxes are just too big! ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: WikiProject Commonwealth realms[edit]

Welcome aboard, DBD. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Senior Management Team[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Senior Management Team, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senior Management Team. Thank you. Ratarsed (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon at British royal articles[edit]

Hello DBD. What's the story on Editors Wikimidlands & 77.101.107.38? Are they, the same person? GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, its time for him/her to be reigned in. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday[edit]

Just a happy Birthday message to you, DBD/Archive 10, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Happy Birthday

from the Birthday Committee

Wishing DBD a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

Idontknow 610^TM 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leet[edit]

Seriously? :-D

Happy birthday, by the way. Waltham, The Duke of 07:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness, that was there for about a year and a half! Lol D B D 12:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this was your birthday gift. Glad you have enjoyed it. :-)

Since I'm here... I hadn't realised that we had made a decision on titles in my talk page; you had proposed an inter-project discussion. Given the general lack of participation, I prefer to avoid them, to be honest, but we should be clear about such things, eh? Waltham, The Duke of 16:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox British Royalty[edit]

Can you please update the documentation for this template to explain its purpose. If it is for *British* royalty, like the project of the same name, it should not be being used on Alfred the Great or Edmund Ironside, right? Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Many happy returns![reply]

Alfred the Great was British? I'm sure that would have come as a surprise, and probably a not a very pleasant one, had he been told so. There has been a British monarchy since 1707 or 1603 if you believe the Royal family's version of events. Nothing to do with the Alfred the Great. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

It went on for twelve days and was closed. I initiated a discussion instead of making changes outright, it is up to you to start a new discussion. You disagreed with the outcome, so what? You are guilty of a violation of consensus and you will not trap me in the 3RR. I will revert it tomorrow and expect discussion to continue rather than to have the convention abused and trampled on just because it doesn't suit your preferences. Charles 23:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply on my page. To be brief, I think twelve days in more than long enough. You did voice your opinion well before that time. Thank you also for your apologies, however, at this time, there has been too much negativity and hostility directed to me that I have trouble finding comfort in kind words, which is not to say that I don't believe them (I do). It's just that there are others who are bent on painting me as a radical anti-monarchists who goes on merge and deletion sprees. You do one thing, they complain. You do the other, they complain more. I'm very close to being done with this place. Not for them (never!) but for me. Why stay in the sandbox if the kids throw sand in your eyes? Charles 06:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I didn't see any consensus there. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "dude" and I don't answer to people who refer to me with feigned familiarity. Charles 22:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud. I'm sorry if that offended you. Allow me to rephrase: Charles, I don't see any consensus there. I see five comments, then an abrupt closure to the commenting period once you got the answer you wanted, and a total disregard for what everyone else--pretty much all of whom oppose the change--has to say. I know I'm new around here, but I don't think that's really the best good-faith way to go about really achieving consensus on the issue. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Hi DBD. With the bunfight about naming conventions, I think the best route would be to get a nice neutral cool head in to mediate the issue. Navigating the labyrinthine articles about how to do so is doing my head in. Would you be able to help? PrinceOfCanada (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the "heads up", I will add my two cents worth! Чарльз - жопа (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, ignore my bit about mediation. Cooler heads seem to be prevailing, and hashing the issue out. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Behave[edit]

Yes I think things got out of hand, like I said in "Charles the red" at WP:NC a lot of people were unhappy, but I accept I took things to far and got to wound up. - dwc lr (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M-W[edit]

Edward may use M-W, but he is not strictly speaking entitled to it--he is entitled to W, per the letters patent. This is why I expanded the explanation. He should use W, he doesn't, he has used M-W and Wessex. Oh, but look.. I can't revert because of 3RR. Hooray! Another win for opinion over fact at WP. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been done to death — that reference has been agreed a while ago. Basically the facts are that:

HRHs do not have a surname
Non-HRH descendants of HM have the surname MW
HRH descendants of HM have often used the surname MW (for instance both Anne and Charles on their respective second marriage banns)

Happy? D B D 21:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you have said has contradicted what I have said. I am well aware that an HRH doesn't have a surname per se, though one is often used in legal contexts (drivers licences, etc). HM's LP decreed that her descendants shall use Windsor. That means that Windsor is his surname when one must be used. That he uses M-W is beside the point, which is what I attempted to address in my second edit. I mean really... Cher has her real name on her driver's licence; that is her name. What she chooses to go by is something else, as I indicated! PrinceOfCanada (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in 1960, HM's declared that her descendants were to continue as the House and Family of Windsor. Her later decree gave the M-W surname to non-HRHs. Thus there is nothing whatsoever said of HRH's surnames. That's why they improvise and utilise M-W, Windsor or a territorial designations etc. Thus the corrent comment is correct. D B D 00:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you an apology. I was apparently in a hideous mood. I'm sorry. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite fine. D B D 14:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil[edit]

I looked at WP:BRSG, and I'm not understanding why what I put was wholly wrong.. I can see the name at the top of the infobox should omit HRH The, but he should be Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, no? Prince is the higher title--why would we use the lower alone? PrinceOfCanada (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the Template doc and other instances of the template, you'll find it's substantive or courtesy titles in the "title" field, when they have one, in preference over styles like Prince/ss X etc. And then in the "Titles and styles" field, it's the common short styles — as such, and even in the Court Circular, Phil is "HRH The Duke of Edinburgh" D B D 21:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Surely, though, 'Prince' is a title while 'HRH' is the style? Diana kept comma Pss o W, losing the style of HRH. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see how the box reads "Prince Philip" then "Duke of Edinburgh"? What's the problem? D B D 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either I was delusional, or it wasn't there at the time.. I seem to be confused. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince William[edit]

William was not created a Royal Knight, but a Knight Companion, and as such will use Postnoms. 81.151.77.14 (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Royal titles[edit]

Well, OK if you think the precedence order works better. But see my comments on that at the talk page Opera hat (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw that just after I reverted. I'm certain I was methodical in the order... I just don't remember the precise method... D B D 10:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at Talk:Anne, Duchess of Cumberland and Strathearn as well please? I'm fairly sure I'm right but maybe there's something I've missed Opera hat (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titles question[edit]

Hi... I'm working my way through Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and I have a question. Post-1974, should he not have been titled & styled HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester as opposed to simply HRH The Duke of Gloucester? It makes sense to me, but I think I'm missing something. I also have a few non-WP-related questions for you about working at Buck House (nothing that would compromise your confidentiality), but those would be best handled offline, if you are interested--I believe I have allowed people to email me from my user page, if you would like to talk about it. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gloucester, we should style him and record his styles as they were and are, not as they should be/have been. The Court Circular, Gazettes and Royal Website use HRH The Duke of Gloucester, so that's what we should use and record. About the Palace, my email address is on my user page, so feel free to email me, but please bear in mind that I have to be quite careful because I signed lots of agreements... (And believe me, they are watching! Wooooo) D B D 08:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.. was quite tired when i wrote that, should have been "should we not list the full title & style, HRH P R D of G". I take your point, though. And will be dropping you an email shortly Thanks! PrinceOfCanada (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Companion (Doctor Who) image map[edit]

Hey, thanks for fixing that image map. I apparently screwed it up when I uploaded a smaller version of the image accidentally. It looks like you made some improvements over the previous version, but I can't help but feeling I caused you undue amounts of work :) Thanks —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 02:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of precedence[edit]

See my answer at Template talk:UK Order of Precedence (Gentlemen). Opera hat (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Matilda of Wales[edit]

Dear DBD, I didn't see where you proposed this move and there's no sign of a discussion on the talk page. Have you now found any evidence of her ever having been referred to as Caroline Matilda of Great Britain? Deb (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no proposal, and no discussion. I sourced the fact that she was never "of Wales", and moved her accordingly. The "of Great Britain" is extrapolated from the convention that "The Prince/ss X" is at "Prince/ss X of Great Britain", so should be "Prince/ss X" D B D 15:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]