User talk:Honbicot/2006

Home and Away

Hi, you have voted in the afd for various Home&Away character articles. I have had a go at combining all the articles in a single article (which I admit still needs a lot of work). You can find it at Current Home and Away characters. I suggest we keep this article are either delete or re-direct the others. What do you think? Thanks, Evil Eye 13:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chatsworth House and RoW

Hardly fair? Well, the High Court case is well documented - and I have certainly personally (with my sister and fiance) suffered the indignity of being escorted off an fp by a Chatsworth gamekeeper during the period when the paths were under question. I'm afraid something is going to have to go back in, to temper your over-warm alteration. Bob aka Linuxlad 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Later... Actually, rereading now I've calmed down, you've marmalised it a bit less than I thought (though some of the early paragraph you've added is little to do with RoW, IMHO.)Bob[reply]

There is such a thing as property rights, and ramblers have been known to push things too far. I don't think you tried very hard to comply with Wikipedia's neutrality policy and you indicated on your comments on the talk page that you sensed this yourself. Your implication that Chatsworth is notably unfriendly to visitors is a travesty of the truth. I've been removed from the grounds of the Royal Palace in Madrid due to confusion over unclear path markings, but I don't hold it against anyone.

The article could do with a lot more about the history of visiting Chatsworth. Before death duties bit the Devonshires used to let people go round the house for nothing - hardly the policy of the haughty guardians of privacy that you imply they were . 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Chatsworth weren't the only estate to fight the definitive pathworks network in the 70s (and yes, that would NOT be surprising anyway) - Gloucestershire were also very late for (I suspect) similar reasons (( I was born in one area (Derby) and moved to the other after college, and was amused by the apparent symmetry). I think my original was reasonably balanced and a useful corrective to panglossian praise of the house of Cavendish - there is no reason to represent them as a wholely-philanthropic institution :-) Bob aka Linuxlad

It wasn't balanced, but so long as you don't try to restore it, it doesn't matter. Honbicot 18:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well clearly I beg to differ. I shan't restore wholesale, but I may well try a middle way. I remind you that the essence of WP is compromise. Linuxlad

The essence is neutrality and truth - not meeting any comment half way regardless of its appropriateness, if that is what you imply. Honbicot 02:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Court of Justice

The 'high court' is not a solely English name. Please link to [High Court of Justice|High Court] in future. FedLawyer 10:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham Palace

Could you comment on this please [1]. I know nothing of this subject and it needs to be accurate in the article. Thank you Giano | talk 19:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, the number of rooms at BP, I'm pretty sure I got from the BP official guide, which I know I have somewhere, the question being precisely where? I will hunt it out later today, perhpas I've made a typo or even heaven forbid the book is wrong! Giano | talk 09:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: While I am trying to find the book, do you know the precise where abouts of the "Ball Supper Room" someone was moaning it was not on the plan, but it's not marked on any of the plans I have available. I have still the plan on the computer so can probably edit it in, and reload. I did wonder though if perhaps it is on a different floor or even a mezanine which is why it's not on any of the plans I have of the piano nobile? Giano | talk 10:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea I'm afraid. Honbicot 17:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. I have found Campbell's groundfloor plan of 1715 (In a big coffeee table type book, in such a place on the page it won't fit into a scanner without breaking the spine of the book). It looks like (as is know) the main entrance and hall are in the same place, as is the staircase (albeit a different shape) underneath where I immagine the gallery now is, is an enfilade of 4 reception rooms, and a minor staircase hall. So you are right it is the house was two rooms deep. So it doed look as if the suite of rooms centring on the bow room were all extended onto the original.

Yes on the plan the picture gallery does look like a "rat run", that is more my lack of skill with a program designed for designing semi-detatcheds at a larger scale. I'm begimimg to wonder if we should not remove the plan wholesale. It was part of the insistance when the page was up for FA - and someone wouldn't beleive none were available (I'm not bothered about FAs anymore - this being a clasic reason why) on the otherhand it does give a make describing the general layout easier, and give an impression of the place. Is it better than nothing? It is just such a complicated design - and there is nothing accurate to work from. I think I'll put a proviso in the page for the time being - while we think about it. I'll try and find the 1715 plan on a google image search, though it's simple design, it has segmental secondary wings, I'm not very good at drawing segmentals! (see Blenheim Palace) Giano | talk 08:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm eavesdropping. Please don't remove the plan - just mark it as "indicative" or "not to scale" (that usual surveyor's "don't blame me, guv"). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Britannica

I'm an American and have accesss to Britannica online and the print version and my versions use British spelling, too. It's domain is .com, not .co.uk and it spells certain words like meter as metre. Do your versions say "British English" on them?--Primetime 14:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't do that because they don't like to give British people an unnecessary clues that EB is no longer edited in the UK. (Based on people I have asked most Britons think it still is, indeed I did myself until last year.) According to this article from the University of Sussex "Britannica’s publishers do not try to appeal to local sensitivities nor do they change content depending on the country of distribution. However, there are slight variations depending on the country of distribution. For example, the spelling is revised for the British edition that also includes the New Oxford English Dictionary, instead of the Merriam Webster’s Dictionary that appears in the North American product." EB certainly uses British spelling in the UK. If it does in the U.S. too then I'm pretty astonished about that. Don't people complain? Honbicot 16:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one complains because most people think it's British here, too. When I started reading Britannica many years ago, I was very eager to see what a British encyclopedia looked like and was fascinated by the spelling and the layout. We tend to like how British English looks and sounds, also. That's one reason why I use the OED, as well. However, when I found out that it was just a Chicago company pretending to be British, I was kind of upset because it makes people angry to see other people lie. Cheers.--Primetime 20:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chatsworth

Hi, I took these earlier today - Image:Chat Ho..gif and Image:Chatsworth Dining Room.gif - sadly the only half-decent pictures in a whole film, my fault entirely! If you want to add them to the page please do. When I have written a page I know exactly what needs to be in or out, and where it needs to be placed. So I'll leave it to you to decide. Regards.Giano | talk 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They will definitely enhance the article so I will add them. Honbicot 13:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kurdish inhabited regions

I was wondering if you could explain what you ment by the main Kurdish area --Cat out 20:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and towns in Italy

I think I know what happened. When the nominated categories are red links, it means that someone deleted them. My closing remarks indicated that the category under discussion was alreadt deleted. So I considered the decision to have been made by someone else and just did the close. I guess I'll do the cleanup in the next day or so to combine the two into one. Vegaswikian 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water transport

I am interested to know what did you mean by China when creating this category [2]. Thanks. — Insta ntnood 11:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want it to mean. I am not involved in the political squabbles that you are well known for being so passionate about. Honbicot 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing what such categories were created for, troubles would probably follow. No everyone may be aware of, that in the real world the word China may mean related but slight different concepts. — Insta ntnood 16:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeway/motorway/whatever category

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC) --SPUI (T - C) 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fictional [fictional/legendary creature]s" categories

Just to let you know I've responded to your query re and at the above. Best wishes, David Kernow 09:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject King George's Fields

I'd love to iunvite you, since you seem interested in open spaced, to participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject King George's Fields, the more so since you had an excellent go at editing quite a complex page on the subject :) Fiddle Faddle 12:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]