User talk:Miesianiacal/October 2013-March 2014

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Infobox shared monarchs[edit]

Hi! I removed those templates from lists of titles and honours of Elizabeth II and George VI because they added absolutely nothing to the article. User:Surtsicna also had the same opinion with me and he removed those templates from the articles and list of titles and honours of other alive or dead members of the royal family.Keivan.fTalk 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. The boxes used to be used on all the bio articles of royals; but, it seems that at some point they were all removed. Was there some discussion about that? They're sill used on bios of Canadian and (at least some) Australian governors general and I now wonder if they're to go from there, too. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it's "shared" for a reason"[edit]

You might want to explain your reverts a little better than that. What's the reason for using 'shared' when there is a template specifically for British monarchs?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The space for edit summaries doesn't allow for lengthy explanations.
George VI was and Elizabeth II is monarch of more countries than just Britain.
I'm not sure this matter is of terribly much importance, since, as you'll see above, there's some dispute over whether or not to use these infoboxes at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to decide whether the 'shared' template should be kept or not, since it was unused until a few days ago, and I nominated for deletion. Is your only objection about the use of the coat of arms of the UK?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the shared one was used at those two articles for a long time before the editors who think the infoboxes are unnecessary removed it (along with the equivalent used in bios of royals who aren't monarchs).
The use in a non-nation-specific context of only one country's symbols to represent a shared monarch is inappropriate and misleading.
DrKiernan has rightly pointed out, though, that Template:Infobox shared monarchs Template:Infobox monarch styles is identical to the 'shared' one, making the latter redundant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean Template:Infobox monarch styles. Anyway, if you agree that 'shared' is not necessary you can vote in favour of deletion at TfD.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh; yes, I did. Sorry.
I think it will be deleted, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
thanks for the correcrtion. just curious why there isn't a comma on his site, but there is on Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. seems inconsistent. claytnb (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure that deserved a Barnstar, but you're welcome. And, yes, the other articles were inconsistent with Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Thanks for pointing that out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need help[edit]

Could you possibly help with these articles in order to complete the series:

Thanks. 147.194.10.102 (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R/royal P/prerogative[edit]

The changes from "royal prerogative" to "Royal Prerogative"[1] seems arbitrary, and inconsistent: I would expect the reverse. There is doubtless good reason: may I ask for guidance on this point? (Other changes there welcome to this reader). Qexigator (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was neither arbitrary nor inconsistent; it was capitalised at Government of Canada and not at Monarchy of Canada; I made them consistent, deliberately. 'The Royal Prerogative' seems like a proper noun to me. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point in its way, but it is not cap'd in the article Royal prerogative (I have corrected the one instance there), including the section on Canada, nor sources there such as [2], and[3] or[4], nor the article Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom; nor Royal prerogative of mercy, and two sources there[5](NZ), and[6] (Oz). A websearch once again shows up the BBC as an unreliable source[7]. Uncaps seems to be the norm. Qexigator (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't dismiss your evidence. But, it does seem weird that we have 'Royal Family' (i.e. British Royal Family) and 'Royal Assent', but 'royal prerogative'. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, weird. RF looks/feels a borderline case. Websearch produces uncaps here[8], caps here[9], and mixed here[10]. What should a newspaper subeditor or Wikipedia do? Uncaps examples could be: "Britain's/ Norway's (etc.) royal family..." or "the royal family of Britain/Canada (etc)", or "the royal families of today's monarchies such as Britain, Norway, Belgium, the Netherland and Spain...". In other words, not there a proper noun with caps. And note long title and preamble for Canada's Royal Assent Act 2002[11]. Qexigator (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statute of Westminster 1931[edit]

Could you clarify for the republicans amongst us why King of France is considered a formal title used as a proper noun, but King of Ireland is not? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I was going to say "King of Ireland" was never extant in law. It certainly wasn't by any Irish law; at least not after the independence of the Irish Free State. But, thinking further on it, the British Royal Style and Titles Act accorded George V, Edward VIII, and George VI the title and style "By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India", which obviously names Ireland specifically. So, perhaps I'm wrong, "King of Ireland" was a proper title... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The crown of Ireland was merged with the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1801, and therefore there was no longer a "King of Ireland". When southern Ireland was severed from the United Kingdom, the king of that country became a separate person, but with the same title, the King of "Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas." Therefore since a king is king of every one of his territories, he was king of southern Ireland, but it was not a title parliament allowed him to use. To summarize, king of southern Ireland was his role, not his title. TFD (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TFD's looks like a logically constructed argument and reasonable deduction. Is there any comtemporary or later citable source to oppose contrary indications? By the way a king is not necessarily king of all the territories in his possession by conquest, inheritance, grant or otherwise: Henry II, Count of Anjou, Count of Maine, Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine, Count of Nantes, King of England; John, Lord of Ireland. Qexigator (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is discussed in Ex parte Quark (Lords, 2005). "The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and Mauritius and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of...the United Kingdom."[12] Of course that is under common law and another title may be used. While the Lords capitalized queen, I think we should only do so when it is used as a title. TFD (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His role, not his title; yes, that's what I was trying to get at. However, does the inclusion of Ireland in the full British royal title not mean George V, Edward VIII, and George VI could've been thought to be titled King of Ireland, in the same way 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, and her Other Realms and Territories' is contracted to simply 'Queen of Canada'? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if that would have been correct, but it was not used. Is there any legal opinion on why the contraction "Queen of Canada" is allowed? I assume it is because it would be up to her government in Canada to challenge their own usage of the term. Also, the Kingdom of Ireland would have included both northern and southern Ireland. TFD (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. True enough. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To return to the question at the top of the section, the generalities of WP[13] cannot alone resolve the anomolous position of the parties, namely the Irish Republic and the King of the UK, in the period 1922 to 1949. The questions involved, such as allegiance, dominion status and diplomatic relations with other states, were not easy to settle at the time, and the parties were knowingly engaged in some artful ambiguities. Qexigator (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+ The source link in Statute of Westminster 1931 to Moore v Attorney General [1935] 1 I.R. may be faulty, but the law report can be found here[14]. The case considered the royal prerogative (sic) in respect of the sea and tidal rivers. A careful reading may detect that an influence in favour of treating the monarchy of Ireland as having been ended was the desire (lawfulness and evidence permitting) to reject the validity of property rights deriving from grants of or connected with land (hereditaments) which had been made by or under any English monarchs or their successors. The Free State's law courts and judiciary were to be thought of as successors to, but no longer part of, the royal system of government which had been ousted. By contrast, Canada has continued to be a royal system of government, but no longer under the sovereignty of the monarch in the UK (Imperial) Parliament or in the UK Privy Council. Qexigator (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how you get that reading. The Irish court decided that rights that had never been acquired by the Crown could not have been granted to private individuals. The court followed the reasoning in recent House of Lords cases in England. TFD (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was how the court ruled (two to one) in reserved judgment (Cur. adv. vult.), after calling for further evidence and argument enabling the judges to present ratio decidendi well-founded on the law as received into and continuing in the successor state, as they understood it. But the case enables us to be reminded that it was a successor, consequent upon treaty: the Attorney-General was not acting for the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the private parties claiming against the lawfulness of the several fishery had been acting as Irishmen under the new regime, whether or not out to demonstrate a political point (like England's Mass trespass of Kinder Scout in 1932). A careful reading of the facts resulting in the litigation and the course of the proceedings may detect an influence in favour of treating the monarchy of Ireland as having been ended, mingled, of course, with other influences including commitment to upholding the rule of law, typified by "Magna Charta" as that had been extended into Ireland from and after the time of John, King of England and Lord of Ireland, and subjecting later enactments (such as the Caroline statutes), and property grants and conveyances, to critical scrutiny in order to result in a definitive ruling which could be acknowledged by common lawyers and legal historians everywhere, including any concerned with the jurisprudence affecting the newer colonies being settled in North America under the English Crown during the 17c. More generally, the judgments are a detailed and reliable source for the history of the Lordship and Kingdom of Ireland, from the twelfth century to the twentieth. See also: "... previously many prosecutions had been issued to fishermen for trespassing. A local solicitor decided to put the fishery company's title to the test. On June 3rd, 1925, having notified the gardai and the fishery company of their intentions, a volunteer crew deliberately entered the estuary to fish. The bailiffs, however, rammed the small fishing craft with their patrol boat and sank it. The case went to the Supreme Court, where a long legal battle ensued....The Erne Fishery Company appealed to the English Privy Council. A special Act was introduced in the Dail overnight, ending the right of appeal from the Supreme Court to the Privy Council. The case also created an international legal incident in that it caused the Privy Council to set up a judicial committee to consider if the Irish government had the power to deny it the right of appeal. The committee held that under a statute of Westminster 1931 it had indeed such power, and so the case ended in victory for the local fishermen."[15]. "This action is still known as the Kildoney Men's Case after William, Patrick and John Goan and about 40 others.[16] Qexigator (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source is wrong. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the section of the Privy Council that hears appeals. They heard the Moore case as a test case to determine if the right of appeal still existed.[17] In Nadan v The King 1926 they had determined that Dominion parliaments could not remove the right, but that was before the 1931 Statute. There is no reason to believe that they would have decided the fishing dispute any differently from the Irish court. TFD (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, again, and thank you for adding the link about de Valera and Cosgrave which helpfully supports my remarks. (Accuracy is always commendable but it matters little here that the website quoted above was mildly garbled about the Judicial Committee, while it would be right to caution anyone who might take it as a reliable source for an article.) Qexigator (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Thank You=[edit]

Good afternoon,

I have noticed that you have made a few revisions after I had posted photographs. I thank you for improving on what I had added. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All else aside[edit]

I was in Barcelona last month, and I took a day of wandering around the city. Coming down from Montjuic, I passed by the magnificent but very fussy Palau Nacional and a little further down the hill found what I was looking for, a sweet and elegant little building. Very much out of place amongst the surrounding styles, it must have seemed like it had arrived from Mars when first constructed in 1929. In other news, I finally succumbed yesterday, buying the Lego model of the Villa Savoye. Much to my astonishment I find that only a couple of kilometres from where I sit is a partial copy, clad in black rather than white! --Pete (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PMO Canada[edit]

Hi there. You seem to have trouble with verifiable sources. I don't understand this difficulty, and have reverted the History section for now. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.57.197 (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you may have trouble with red herrings, which verifiability is here. It was stated that the information you inserted is counter to WP:NPOV and/or not directly relevant to the subject of the article.
It also seems you're not an experienced Wikipedia editor. Perhaps you should calm down and take some time to understand how editing works here; start with WP:EDIT and WP:CONSENSUS. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confused - am I seeing this right?[edit]

Getting concerned not all have a history background in that conversation or are even acknowledging the sources there. Lots of guess work on things. I think a RfC would be a good idea. There is a territorial evolutionary history of what happened in Canada and to put its simply the Spanish or Portuguese crown are not involved. I take it all know at that Cabot's commission was by King Henry VII not the Spanish or Portuguese crown right? Seems like they are saying Cabot is linked to the Spanish crown - am I seeing this right? Searching "Canada under Spanish rule", "Spanish crown in Canada" or "Spanish Empire and Canada" leads to nothing at all ...not even a web page. -- Moxy (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's going on at that article anymore; I thought it'd all been settled. I hesitate to favour an RfC; my suspicion is it'll degenerate into a debate on whether or not to keep the list at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Martin, CVO[edit]

I am talking to him now and intend to send him a copy of the OM Wikipedia article for his expert comments on whether the Order of Merit is 'British' in the widest sense of the word: Watch This Space! (I have also sent him OM references from the biography of Doctor HENRY JACKSON, OM) 2.30.207.23 (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, Nitramrekcap. Reliable sources are required. And reliable sources have already been provided showing the order is part of the systems of honours of more than simply the UK. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time Persons of the Year 1951–1975[edit]

Hi there. I know you have contributed heavily to Time Person of the Year in the past, including talk page discussions. It would be great to have your opinion on an ongoing RfC at Template talk:Time Persons of the Year 1951–1975, regarding how entries for 1960 and 1975 are listed. Thanks. - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • UPLOADS) 21:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation standards[edit]

Would you be willing to add the royal standards used at Elizabeth II's coronation, and some descriptive text regarding them, to the relevant articles; Queen's Personal Australian Flag, Royal standards of Canada, Queen's Personal Flag for New Zealand, Royal Standard of the United Kingdom and Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II.

Fry1989 eh? 19:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. It seems like obviously related material. Is there any textual information to go along with them? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I came to you. I found the photos a few years ago (shame it took this long ti get them made), but have no info about them other then that they were used at the coronation. They are pure banners of arms like the UK royal standard rather then the current Aus/Can/NZ ones which add the badge of Elisabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth. They are also in a shorter ratio then the four current royal standards, and in the case of the Canadian one I'm sure you'll notice the green maple leaves since this was before the change to red ones. Other then that, I don't really know what to say. I've tried to find supporting information but to no avail. Fry1989 eh? 19:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Rideau Hall's area[edit]

I found that there's a problem with the area pertaining to Rideau Hall. Here is the detail. Your wisdom is needed. Komitsuki (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Cape Breton Gaelic College[edit]

Please use the talk page to sort this out.

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and a question[edit]

There is seemed to be a form vandalism in The Crown article. By the way, is there an "Ontarian" equivalent to this File:Que-gov.jpg image? Komitsuki (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refs follow punctuation[edit]

That rule is supposed to stop people putting a reference between a word and a punctuation mark, which looks ugly. It doesn't mean the reference has to go after whichever punctuation mark happens to occur next in the sentence. Opera hat (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.M.[edit]

http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/theme/92834

Martin 2.30.207.240 (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox CF rank[edit]

Template:Infobox CF rank has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post-nominals[edit]

Can you give me some evidence of anywhere where small postnoms are mandated? See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Academic titles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Post-nominal initials. Do these use small postnoms? No they do not. Why? Because this is not normal. There is no good reason for making the template 85%. None whatsoever. Normal style is for the postnoms to be the same size as the name. Wikipedia style is for the postnoms to be the same size as the name. The fact it is longstanding is utterly irrelevant. That doesn't mean it can't be changed if that change conforms to both normal style and our house style. Which it clearly does. Since you created the template this is clearly your preferred style, but it is not normal style and you do not have ownership of the template once created. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the template has used the smaller font for... Well, since it was created, the onus is upon you to justify your change by showing where large post-noms are mandated. (See WP:CONACHIEVE and WP:EDITCONSENSUS, supported by WP:SILENCE. Also, have a gander at Wikipedia:Be bold#Template namespace.) The template font is set at 85% to separate it from the rest of the surrounding font, so that long strings of post-noms appear deliberate, rather than as gibberish insert into the text. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note you started a discussion. But, you didn't get any support. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've started several discussions in various places and received mixed views. Interesting that you so rarely contribute to them, but pop up only to revert my changes! But it's now time for an RfC, which will hopefully get a wider range of feedback. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I don't follow all your contributions to Wikipedia. I mostly only notice when you edit pages I regularly do.
Interesting that someone so concerned by post-nominal font size didn't notice the template has a built-in option to make the font 100%. Though, of course, that only moves the dispute on sizing to the articles where the template's used. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened debates both on that page and on other appropriate pages such as WP:MOSBIO, since that's far more likely to be looked at by people interested in biographies than a template talkpage. I'm entirely aware of the option to convert to 100%. I've used it many times. However, I think the default should be 100%. Most editors will just use the template unaware that they have that option. Which is precisely why I've had to use it many times! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Star awarded[edit]

Good day to you Miesianiacal,

I hope that you are doing well. I have noticed the star banner that you have awarded to my talk page. Thank you very much. However, I do not believe that I actually deserve it, because I have used the work of user:Sodacan and added the A for the Princess Royal. I would believe that he deserves it more then I do, and hopefully, seeing that he is a better artist then me, will have a chance to draw it one day.

Have a good day Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal/October_2013-March_2014&oldid=1141092010"