User talk:The Duke of Waltham

The Office of The Duke of Waltham

---

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Duke of Waltham

Article • User page • Contrib's (edit count) • Private office •
"Auto-formatting is evil" • Westminster Palace workshop and watchlist

His Grace The Duke of Waltham

@This user can be reached by email.

This user contributes using a typewriter, and sends all contributions via snail mail.

Greetings, dear Wikipedian. My name is Harold Cartwright, and I am the Duke of Waltham's private secretary. On behalf of the Duke, I should like to welcome you to His Grace's talk page.

Here you may leave notices, announcements, or any other messages that could interest the Duke, and you may flatter him, request his assistance or advice (if you really think he's able to do anything on his own), discuss his actions on Wikipedia, or talk about matters of mutual interest. As this is a free speech venue, your criticism will be welcome as well. To be honest, I personally enjoy seeing negative comments about my employer, as his arrogance would become even more insufferable if left unchecked.

I probably need to clarify that, even though this page exists to accommodate all kinds of "talk", ranging from professional correspondence (i.e. messages pertaining to Wikipedia and the ongoing struggle for its improvement) to light-hearted conversation, it is not meant for discussion of matters in any way private. Messages of sensitive content ought to be e-mailed to His Grace instead, so that the required level of privacy can be ensured.

Please leave your posts at the bottom of this page and sign them with four tildes (~~~~), so that we shall know who is posting what and when. You are warned that unsigned posts do not merit a reply here and shall be summarily deleted; this is wholly within the poster's responsibility, I'm afraid.

Please note that His Grace follows a policy of keeping conversations unfragmented; in other words, an exchange that begins in one talk page should continue in that same talk page, in order to keep the discussion whole and intelligible. If a conversation has begun in a venue other than this, you need not answer here; you can rest assured that I shall notify the Duke about any new messages (through use of a designated watchlist).

You are requested not to edit anything in this page except for your own posts; any other changes shall be reverted on sight. It is also suggested that, if you must edit your posts, you should do so sparingly, as it is generally considered impolite to alter the content of posts that have already been answered to, or even read.

Old discussions are archived with extreme care, even though half of them do not deserve such treatment in the least. But who am I but a secretary, to be judging my boss's gossip. Well, for those interested, the archives are open to the public from 09:00 to 17:00, Mondays to Fridays.

Please don't leave any litter while you are here. There is a dustbin in the corner.

By the way, thank you for not smoking.

Have a nice day.

---

Back from the archives!

Oops, a little bit of a silence there. Sorry, Duke. Anyway, I hope that there will be only subtle changes, and not many major problems (such as everyone becoming homeless when they cannot afford to even go to work anymore, since gas prices will be sky-high.) And I love the BBC. I think they are one of the very few news channels that gives a global perspective. As for my duties for you, my Duke, I shall do my absolute best.  :] kkarma 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have to be realistic: if there are houses, people will be able to occupy them. Don't forget how the market works—the law of supply and demand always plays its part. Now, if we are to talk about the rise of the water levels and how that will submerge a few millions of houses worldwide, that is a completely different matter.

On the petrol front, I daresay that when it does start running low, the demand for alternative forms of energy will rise sharply, and so investments will be made to ensure that there will be a supply as well. I case you haven't noticed, the great petrol companies are the ones leading research into clean energy. Since they have so much money, why not invest it in order to ensure that in fifty years they will still be the colossi that they are today?

Generally speaking, the changes will be much subtler than one imagines, simply because these things happen gradually. However, this kind of change is by no means comparable to what people were used to in, say, the eighteenth century (not to talk about classical history). Time felt much slower in the past. No, no, one will have to see the greater picture, a period of perhaps ten or more years, in order to realise the true magnitude of the changes. Waltham, The Duke of 02:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry about taking ten days to reply. I've got a lot going on.
Anyways, when I mentioned everyone becoming homeless, I was refering to all the reports we've been hearing here in the US about all these home foreclosures, and pets being left behind to starve and whatnot. There may always be homes for people to live in, but that doesn't mean they'll get to stay in them.
And the petrol companies are researching alternatives, but I don't believe they are moving about it fast enough (for me, anyway). And, with everyone's banks being broken over the petrol prices, I doubt if anyone will be able to afford a new car when they're developed, for the alternative fuels. Unless they're planning on giving out a few million cars for free. Just recently, I've started hearing reports about a major drought that is going on in the western US. If that continues to go as they say, Los Angeles and Las Vegas will be in big trouble.
I'm sure we will all survive, though, it just might be rough for a while. kkarma 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Banks are, unfortunately, almost always ruthless; it would take a lot of "persuasion" by the government (any government) for them to take it easy with people and help with the human disaster that global-warming-induced massive flooding would cause by seizing less houses and selling their own for less money. And the governments would, in all probability, need some persuasion themselves.

Petrol prices will keep rising, as the geo-political situation deteriorates and the supplies diminish. Even worse, increased bio-fuel production is taking up land previously used for the growing of staples like wheat and rice; this is one of the main factors driving food prices up. Riots are already breaking out in many third-world countries, and these are not the only ones that will be affected.

Potable water is also in short supply, and getting worse. Mismanagement, altering weather patterns, and a growing population are making sure that the newer, and future, generations will have a huge problem in their hands. Wars will be waged over water in the 21st century, as they have been for oil in the twentieth, and for so many other things in the past.

We shall probably survive, somehow, but things will, in my estimates, be rough for much longer than "a while".

And I am supposed to be an optimist. Hell... Waltham, The Duke of 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Palace of Westminster

Don't worry not abandoned it! Only dipping in and out of WP for the next few days, will have a proper sit down and crack on with it when I'm free from of real-world distractions! Paulbrock (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice to hear. I like having fun with people, but some editors simply lack a sense of humour, and one cannot know who these are until one meets them. In any case, the article looks good, the user who has added the traditions section has now added another paragraph to it, and I am ready to work with you in addressing the remaining concerns. I have a great interest in the article, and I should be proud to co-nominate it for GAN and FAC when the time comes, if it is fine with you. Until next time, Waltham, The Duke of 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Styles in Suc. Boxes

Eh up "Your Grace". I've been looking at the line of succession to the British throne succession boxes (among others) on the British royalty biography pages, and wondered if you could point me towards a guideline as to how they should read. For instance, should HRH The Prince of Wales be referred to in-box as "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales", "The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" "HRH The Prince of Wales" "The Prince of Wales" "Charles, Prince of Wales"? Do such guidelines even currently exist? And, if so, shall we start a cross-project (WP:BROY and SBS) discussion as to what they should be? Cheers ^† DBD 15:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my delay, but things have been rather hectic lately, both on- and off-line. I have wanted to have a look on the issue before answering, as well.

So. As far as succession boxes are concerned, there are no guidelines on the styles of royalty. WP:SBSGUIDE, the succession-box guidelines currently in existence and maintained by WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, has several gaps which need to be filled, and this one seems to be amongst the greatest. We should definitely initiate an inter-project discussion to this end; I shall leave you to decide the venue.

Now, although these will also be mentioned in the discussion, I'd like to state them here first: A good basis would be the fact that we do not use addresses like Her Majesty, His Royal Highness, and His Grace (or any shortcuts thereof) in succession boxes, therefore all variations of HRH are automatically excluded (with the probable exception of the orders of precedence, where things are completely different; this is another subject altogether). Personally, and from what I remember (I haven't dealt with these boxes for some time now) I've been using Prince X, [Rank] (of) [Title] for nobles of royal blood, and Prince Charles of Wales in the particular case, in order to keep Prince and the name together.

What do you think? Waltham, The Duke of 10:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine, except for that Charles should *never* be "Prince Charles of Wales" because that form signifies a son of the Prince of Wales (cf. Prince William of Wales). So, I'll go with "Prince X, Title of Place", except for Charles, whom in such cases we call "Charles, Prince of Wales". Cheers ^† DBD 10:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've just made a fool of myself. Charles, Prince of Wales is the way to go; I now remember using the style used as article title (example: [1]). I plead guilty for misinformation and not doing my homework. Waltham, The Duke of 12:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there should be no position numbers in the order of precedence; tens to hundreds could be affected with every little change in the line. Waltham, The Duke of 12:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My thinking precisely — I've left them in those on the Queen's descendants' pages (although moved out of the 'years' field), because that's only 12, and is fairly unlikely to change for a while. I'll remove numbers from any after Zara Philips ^† DBD 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to be in order, even though slightly contrary to standardisation; editorial judgement should always play some part, I guess. Waltham, The Duke of 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, another issue: Jack Straw#Offices held has loads of preliminary styles ("The Most Rev" etc.) where apparently we refrain from them (certainly as far as I'm aware, there are no "The Hon"s in the line of succession boxes...) Would you happen to be able to explain why this is? ^† DBD 11:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Note 1: The Offices held heading looks redundant to me; succession boxes are always about offices held. On the other hand, this is not a standard career list, so the heading could be slightly inaccurate as well.

Note 2: The orders of precedence have not yet been addressed by SBS; there need to be standards, and then a cleanup of the orders should follow. There have been voices calling for the deletion of the orders, but this has not been discussed for at least a year. In any case, it is the only succession-line type allowing preliminary titles and the sort; it's about pomp and tradition, after all, even if it is a break from our tradition. Waltham, The Duke of 12:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Note 2: I've previously edited Lady Hayman's SBs and, apart from the 'Offices held' heading (for which I don't care), I think the precedence boxes are as they should be (i.e. personal links with official links) ^† DBD 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that is better, although the link for the subject's own title is redundant; it can be found higher in the box, and in bold. Other notes:

• The official name for the title is Lord Speaker; "of the House of Lords" is not necessary.
• I like what you have done with the header for the order of precedence, but we really need to find a more standard way of doing things. Orders of precedence are in a mess, generally speaking.
• You should know that the {{s-par}} header should only be used for seats; other headers are used for parliamentary offices and titles ({{s-off}}, {{s-gov}}, {{s-ppo}}, and {{s-hon}}, depending on the title).
• I have substituted the templates with the corresponding {{s-start}} ones; I have made use of the "as" parameter for the change of title in the first line.

Please have a look at the changes and tell me what you think. Waltham, The Duke of 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the wisdom shared

Thank you for your submission in re: transparency at the "top of the food chain." Full disclosure of credentials, and identities of the "ruling class" at Wikipedia, is long overdue. Your comment about the real world is very much appreciated; thank you and much admiration for certain. 12.35.96.66 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind remarks. All I did was to say my opinion; although I do not believe that editors, or even administrators, should be forced to reveal their identities against their wishes, people in the highest stations of the community are morally obliged to be straightforward about who they are. The bad thing is that many editors still think they are in the fairyland that the early, juvenile Wikipedia used to be. They do not understand that this is a global educational organisation, with hundreds of thousands of members and millions of readers from around the world: there is media attention, there are great sums of money in the equation, there are real people's reputations on the line, and there are many really nasty pieces of work out there and in here. One must tread carefully, plan in advance, and be prepared for contingencies. People with sensitive characters and/or in places of high risk should lie low; people who can confront the dangers of the two interconnected societies, the real one and the Wikipedia community, should be candid about themselves and move forward without running the risk of any dirty secrets coming to the fore, real or fictitious. Waltham, The Duke of 21:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable redirects of links to Church of St. Margaret, Westminster

[Jdforrester's cross-posted reply to a message in his talk page has been removed to keep the conversation concentrated and in-context.]

New thoughts on the use of succession boxes in venue articles

Good day, your grace. As spring gardening is in full force at the Waltham Hall estate, my mind wandered back over the topic of dealing with succession boxes as they relate to venues. Through continuing to come across the sad state of affairs this topic is currently in (and reading the discussions at wt:sbs), I wonder if it would be wise to form a subproject or taskforce within SBS to start fleshing out a recommended style for this area. Here is but a start to the list of items that I see possibly needing to be addressed in this area of work:

• no italics in before or after boxes (overformatting)
• no linking to non-topical host years
• linking to topical host years
• no bolding for host year (overformatting)
• what to do with odd situation like the use of dots in davis cup boxes in Germantown Cricket Club
• what should first stadium box say, "none", "first stadium"
• what should current stadium boxes say, "incumbent", "current"
• should the title use the name of teams at the time of their use?
• how to deal with non-sequential hosting (the topic that I first approached you with)?
• etc.

And it would make sense for the answers to these questions to be in synchrony with the SBS guidelines for people. Should you feel this is the way to go, I volunteer to try and coordinate these efforts and to try and find other folks interested in this niche of sbs. You thoughts would be most appreciated. Humbly yours, --Gwguffey (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bored

I wouldn't say I'm bored enough to automatically do anything you suggest, and I have got a few things knocking around; but they're all waiting on someone else at the moment so it would be nice to have something not-too-urgent to fill the dull gaps. What have you got in mind? Happy‑melon 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I, as well, am curious as to the nature of such an assignment. Nihiltres^{t.l} 22:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's top-secret, go away. :-D

All right... First of all, do excuse me, but I was surprised to discover that the bulk of the job has been taken care of already. Several days ago, actually... I was about to tell you to change the documentation in the various succession templates to {{documentation}}; the pages have been unstandardised for months. Ah, well, there are still plenty of tweaks to do.

Now, the desired standard format for each page is to use green documentation pages generated by the aforementioned template, the small versions of the "indefinitely protected template" red padlocks, and no image or code before the /doc page, as the examples are in it. An example of this format is... Well, there is no good example, but let's say {{s-par}} without the extra spacing is good enough. The list:

• In {{s-ach}}, please remove the code and change the full message box to the small padlock.
• In {{s-civ}}, change the full message box to the small padlock.
• In {{s-par}} and {{s-prec}} there is too much spacing at the top.
• In {{s-reg}} and {{s-sports}} there is no "protected" template at all; in the latter, as well as in {{s-rel}}, there is also an example at the top, which should go (please take care not to leave redundant spacing).

I should very much appreciate it if you could be troubled to fix these. If we want to call ourselves the Succession Box Standardization WikiProject, then our templates' pages should be standardised as well, but as they are all protected, an administrator is needed for even the slightest fix.

Apart from these, there are several templates which have no documentation appended to them. These are {{s-aca}}, {{s-bus}}, {{s-court}}, {{s-culture}}, {{s-dip}}, {{s-edu}}, {{s-gov}}, {{s-herald}}, {{s-hon}}, {{s-legal}}, {{s-lit}}, {{s-media}}, {{s-mil}}, {{s-off}}, {{s-other}}, {{s-ppo}}, and {{s-pre}}. I am not asking you to add documentation pages to them just yet, but I do believe that, even if there are no parameters for these templates, it would be a good thing to add some little documentation and a reference to the Template:S-start page. What do the two of you think? Waltham, The Duke of 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done all the ones you've spelled out. Do you want me to apply the same general formatting (code in <includeonly> tags, {{pp-template}} with |small=yes, {{documentation}}, and no examples) to those other templates? Happy‑melon 09:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, dear fellow. The template pages are now up to scratch. Thank you very much for your trouble.

About the documentation-less templates, now... I was asking for your opinion on this, but, as it turns out, I don't really need it. :-) As the self-declared benevolent dictator of SBS, I authorise you to proceed. I shall log in again in a few hours' time, and when I do I shall start providing the documentations straight away. And then it's the turn of {{succession box}}; it's not one of our templates, but we cannot forbid people to use it, so we could at least tell them how to use it properly and restrict its use to the bare minimum. I pledged to write the documentation for that one more than a week ago, actually... Too busy, too forgetful, I'm afraid. I think today's the time, finally, and your giving it an empty documentation page would be a good impetus for me not to postpone it again. Waltham, The Duke of 09:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The first three you have done are great; {{documentation}} is so clever, in fact (or, rather, the people behind it), that clicking on the create link brings up a template (not in the Wikipedia sense) with the basics for a documentation page. I have provided these three with documentations, and started tweaking with the ones which already had such pages for standardisation. During the course of this, I have removed the protection template from {{s-civ}}, which should be on the template page and not on the documentation page. I did notice that the box was in the green space when compiling the list for you but didn't think much of it. Sorry for the extra trouble. Waltham, The Duke of 03:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)