User talk:DrKay

Rothschild properties in England

Hi DrKierman I notice you have just actioned a change to Rothschild properties in and around Buckinghamshire, this follows a posting by me to Wikipedia:Requested moves. My proposal was for the recent and unilateral reversal of this page move to the previous article title Rothschild properties in England on ground that the recently changed title was ambiguous etc and was against the comments on the article's talk page. However the change you have implemented appears to have had the effect of a circular change which had the effect of re-restoring the article title Rothschild properties in and around Buckinghamshire. Please could you review and advise if this was your intention and if so why. Many thanks. Tmol42 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Further thought. Has this occurred because the editor who changed the article name to ......in and around Buckinghamshire, made a mess of a first title change and the restoration has only gone back one change rather than two? Tmol42 (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the "Rothschild properties in Rothschild properties..." and "...Buckinghamshire full stop" redirects because these are clearly mistakes created when the pages were moved about. I haven't made any actual edits to the "in and around Buckinghamshire" or "in England" pages. DrKiernan (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Edward VIII

Is edit on Edward VIII for style, or for correcting a factual error? patsw (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Both. It's unnecessary on grounds of prose because the sentence is understandable without it, so it's verbiage or a tautology. Secondly, being created a royal duke is not the same as being appointed to a sinecure. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dash (spaniel)

Orlady (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Caroline of Ansbach question

She was co-heiress to Sayn-Altenkirchen through her mother, whose mother Johanette reigned as Countess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn-Altenkirchen, but ultimately never inherited it. Her grandson, George III, was compensated for this in 1803. - Is there anything in the Kiste source about this? I can't find any suitable sources online, and don't have access to Kiste's book. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 01:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No, nothing. Looks like it should be cut. DrKiernan (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

K, just removed it. Care to expand the lead further? I think it needs more work, but am never very good at writing short summaries. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 03:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead looks good to me. You're being too hard on yourself! DrKiernan (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking the big plunge and nominating Caroline of Ansbach for GA. I'll add you as a co-nominator if you like. :) Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 19:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Er, on second thought I'm not really sure how you add a co-nominator in the GA process (must be mixing it up with FA). Oops! I still want some type of acknowledgment for your hard work on the article though! Got any tips? Ruby2010 talk 19:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked down the GAN page to see if there were any joint noms and there are a few, which seem to be done like this[1], but I certainly wouldn't worry about it. Doing it like that might mess up some bot move later down the line, so it could be safer to leave it as it is. The only thing that I think a reviewer is likely to complain about is the thinness of sources in the "Titles, styles, honours and arms" section. I might try to source that bit in the next few days. DrKiernan (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good tip. However, I don't have access to the Michael Maclagan book. I tracked down the editor who added that long paragraph on her coat of arms in the hopes of finding a source, so hopefully that works out. Should every title of hers be cited? Ruby2010 talk 20:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Caroline's arms according to Maclagan

Anther version of Caroline's coat of arms

I've got the Maclagan book. I think we could have a bit of a problem there. The reference was inserted here[2] to support the addition of the first file shown right. As you can see, some of the 15 sinister quarters in Maclagan's version are different to those in the version used in the article. Sodacan altered his version [3] on 6 January, presumably changing it from the Maclagan version to the Willement version.

The 4th, 6th, 9th, and 15th quarters are the same in each.

The 3rd, 12th, 13th and 14th quarters in Maclagan's version are the 2nd, 11th, 12th and 13th respectively in Willement's.

The 1st and 10th quarters in Maclagan's version (which is very simply drawn) are probably the same as the 1st and 8th quarters in Willement's.

The 11th quarter in Maclagan's is similar to the 10th quarter of Willement's; the only difference being that the lion is gules (red) instead of sable (black).

Maclagan's 2nd, 5th, 7th, and 8th quarters do not appear in Willement's version, where they are replaced by the 3rd, 5th, 7th and 14th quarters.

The inescutcheon in Willement's version does not appear in Maclagan's.

How can we reconcile these differences? DrKiernan (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am accountable here, so I will try and explain this. There are few sources on the Arms of Queen Caroline of Ansbach, since I have almost every Royal Heraldry book ever printed I will try to explain. There are four books that mentioned the Arms of the Queen. These are:

*Regal Heraldry by Thomas Willement (1821): A Blazon is described, as well as an image is shown. This print is mentioned in the text as a contemporary depiction of the arms [4].

*Manual of Heraldry, Historical and Popular by Charles Boutell (1863): A blazon is described, quoted almost verbatim by myself, but referenced to Willement Can be found here on Google Books.

*Royal Heraldry of England by Pince and Pinces (1974): Completely different arms shown, which I later discovered was actually the arms of her brother (who succeeded her father), the book however is full of mistakes (including spelling and dates).

*Line of Succession: Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe by Michael Maclagan (1999): Completely different arms from both the older works of authority as well as Pinces and Pinces, however as you can see from your own copy, no blazon is ever described. Only that she inherited them from her father.

At first, as you can see from the history of My version, I went with Michael Maclagan's version based on the old Wikipedia version, however I never completely felt comfortable with it, so I remade it under the blazon of Willement. This is because I would rather based my work on a verifiable source (the blazon of Willement, which can also be found in Boutell), than the tiny image as printed in Michael Maclagan's book. Also the fact that Willement was published less than a hundred years after her death, as suppose to the modern works. Please feel free to ask question me on this matter, I would rather we sort this out now. I am very willing to help all I can. Sodacan (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just cut the Maclagan reference out? DrKiernan (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, best solution, I think. Sodacan (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Anna Anderson issue, no paranoia please

Just wanted you to know I have deleted one alias from the info box: Franziska never used the alias "Anna Anderson Manahan". It looks silly to include that, and it is inaccurate. She did, however, use the alias "Anastasia Nicolaevna Manahan" after marriage.76.195.85.160 (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Help me understand wikipedia process

Something was wrong with my edit [5] according to your edit [6]. If you could read this first [7] and then share your thinking when you made that edit, it would be most insightfull to the whole process. --Ilyaroz (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession format changes

Thank you for suggesting a number of format changes to the Line of succession to the British throne. Since this article is so large, and it is so difficult to revert changes after other changes have occurred (e.g. a week later), I wanted to make sure that there is some level of consensus for these changes. With several of the changes, I personally don't have a strong settled opinion (so I'll be interested by the rationales of other editors). Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish that there had been more responses to your proposals for format changes. I'm not sure that there is a consensus for all of them (particularly changing "The Prince of Smithland" to "Bob, Prince of Smithland), but if you feel strongly about honorifics and XC (even though I personally disagree about the later) did you want to move on this? Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is in danger of being nominated for deletion. There will be more deleters if the pretend titles of the people in line are kept in, the page remains absurdly long, and derogatory language is used to refer to Catholics. DrKiernan (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew Wikipedia comment

I asked you another question there. Are you usually there or here? Thanks, Atbannett (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Here. There are serious problems with the article "Line of succession..." but if you think it more accurately reflects the Hebrew page, then revert. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

No template, as you're a regular, but please get into the habit of leaving edit summaries. You can change your preferences so that you get a warning if you forget to leave a summary. My preferences >Editing > tick box marked"Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" then save. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Authority control

Hi DrKiernan, I just partly reverted your edit to this template. The purpose of the template isn't just to add some external links to the article (in that case, it would have to be changed indeed). It's used to add useful metadata to the article and link the article/the subject of the article to the corresponding entries in authority files of national libraries and organisations like the Library of Congress and the Virtual International Authority File. The external links to viaf.org or errol.oclc.org (which shows information from the LoC authority file) are just added as a convenience and additional value for the reader, but they're not the main purpose of the template. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

RE. My edits on George V, Edward VIII

Whilst I acknowledge that my edits were, as far as titles are concerned, incorrect, I cannot see why putting Edward VII as 'King of New Zealand and 'King of Newfoundland' from 1907 somehow implies that they were colonised by britain from 1907; prior to 1907, they were colonies; i.e. british territory, even if not de jure part of the UK. after, they were made dominions; i.e. autonomous-but independent states within the british empire. Thus, he was separately 'King of New Zealand', etc; even if he didn't hold the title of 'King of New Zealand'. Prior to 1907, he wasn't 'king of new zealand' any more than he was 'king of gibraltar', say; or 'king of the british antarctic terriory; as it was a colony. Afterwards, he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet another subject about... Caroline of Ansbach

I need help with some clarification. Who exactly is the 1720 "reconciliation" referring to? The King and the prince of Wales? Walpole and the King? I only mention this because the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography discusses a reconciliation between Wapole and the King's ministers, while the article on George I of Great Britain talks about an argument between the King and the prince of Wales. Or are they two different affairs? Or perhaps everyone previously mentioned was involved in the issue? What does Van Der Kiste say on the subject? I bring this up because the GA reviewer would like the subject to be briefly expanded. Thanks for your help! :) Ruby2010 talk 20:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot see Van der Kiste at the moment, as the part of the library holding the book is closed for refurbishment until the start of May. The ODNB makes clear that the "rogue and rascal" quote refers to the reconciliation between the two Georges, and in my notes on Van der Kiste, I've written "for the sake of public unity" as the reason for Walpole's push towards reconciliation. From memory, I thought it was because Walpole had just rejoined the ministry, and his position was solidified if the king and the prince (his former ally) were no longer at odds, but I've not written this in my notes, and so that probably can't go in. DrKiernan (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I moved the short paragraph up into a preceding one that deals more with politics. I also responded on the GA review, so hopefully it will be ready to go. Ruby2010 talk 16:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It passed! Thanks for your help on the article. Much appreciated, Ruby2010 talk 17:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Great! Well done! DrKiernan (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Blade Runner FAR

I have nominated Blade Runner for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible review

I understand that Vicky is keeping you busy, but is there any chance you would have a second to look at John A. Macdonald, currently at FAC? Vicky's contemporary, and she does play a small part in the article, which is why I thought of you. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, sorry. I'm afraid you're caught in the fall-out from something else. DrKiernan (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The hardest thing around here is learning when to say no to people.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Galapagos tortoise promotion

Thank you so much for all the time and effort you've spent on this article, it couldn't have happened without you! Minglex (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

how many greats?

Re Queen Victoria, I understand the lineage goes Victoria; Edward VII (son); George VI (grandson); Elizabeth (great granddaughter). Have I missed one? Rumiton (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You have, George VI was a great grandson as you forgot grandson George V. Thus Elizabeth is great great.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, silly me. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I responded on the Template talk: Authority control page--07:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am less interested in the coding than in getting the information to the user. Whatever you all want to decide is fine with me; once I know what the consensus regarding how and where the template should appear, I can go from there. Hope that's not a problem.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Really? Unless I'm mistaken, I reverted your edits that had no summary or despiction of the reasons to what you did. You want the article according to your own personal taste, not according to sources or even common sense. You might be regarded by Sandygeorgia or anyone else as somekind of guru where everyone has to respect your thoughts as dogmas, but that will not work on me. Learn Portuguese first. Read books about Brazilian hitory after that. I tried to be reasonable and to cooperate the best I could, but your behavior revealed to me that nothing of that will matter. I'll stick to your oppose. I'll know from now and on that if you oppose me it's because I'm certainly right. --Lecen (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, really.

I tagged it as needing citation. Provide a citation. Otherwise it's original research. You're the one who wants the article according to your personal taste. I'm the one who wants it according to reliable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Same message posted on both your user pages: I don't know what's going on here, but it's making my job at FAC difficult. It's pretty clear you two have a problem with each other; please stop talking to each other. DrKiernan, I understand the policy issue and I'll work with Lecen to fix it, I think you'll be able to see that at FAC. Lecen, I'd prefer DrKiernan not strike his oppose or make any other edits to your FAC, but if we deal with the problem, that's not a barrier to promotion. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, on the subject of translation of the names, I've asked Lecen on his talk page for a couple more quotes supporting his statement that "American and British historians prefer to call Brazilian royals by their original name." The English sources in that article that I can pull up do in fact refer to them this way. You mentioned that The Times and Charles Edwards Lester both translated the names, and both of those sources are useful if we've got nothing better, but we do in fact seem to have a big pile of scholarly sources that don't translate the names. Don't worry about digging, this isn't that important, but do you happen to have other sources that do translate the names, perhaps scholarly sources? - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, how did this get to be for blood? I asked Lecen for a couple of quotes to support his position. He gave me 29; see my talk page. So: on this particular question, my position is that the names shouldn't be translated into English, since English sources typically don't translate them. Do you disagree? - Dank (push to talk) 23:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Typically, they are not translated. The so-called "French" form is occasionally used in English-language sources. I can only find her name in sources of any language in the forms: Mari[e or a][space or hyphen]Am[e,é or a]li[e or a]. DrKiernan (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Posting this to both talk pages: okay, if we were talking about a word whose meaning the readers couldn't guess that all the sources kept in Portuguese for some reason, we'd need to provide a translation, but since we're not going to have any readers wondering what "Maria" can possibly mean, we should just give "Maria". If we translate it, we're telling readers that we think they need to know the anglicized version ... and they don't, they shouldn't use that version, according to the best sources. Is this acceptable? - Dank (push to talk) 11:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. DrKiernan (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to Lecen's comments on your talk page and at User talk:The ed17: I've already explained that Pedro II is called Peter II in reliable english sources and Teresa Cristina is called Theresa Christina in reliable english sources. So, it is acceptable to mention these translations. Originally, Lecen had translated Teresa Cristina as Teresa Christine, which I corrected to conform to reliable english sources [8] as there are no sources that call her Teresa Christine.

The same applies to Maria Amélia. Her name is never translated as Mary Emily, not once in two centuries, even though she is referred to in plenty of english-language sources. I can see the sense of using our own translation if the name is written in Bengali or Chinese and there is no english translation available. But these are well-known names. No-one has heard of Emily Earhart, but we are all familiar with Amelia. As Maria Amélia appears in many english-language works, we should use a name (or the names, if necessary) printed in those works, not create one of our own. DrKiernan (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)