User talk:Proteus/Archive 3

Airbus Industrie → Airbus

Thanks for taking the time to support the move I suggested, much appreciated. Mark 19:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Peter, thanks for noticing my reuqest. muriel@pt 21:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

styles

Hi Peter. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. It is best to describe the styles problem by going back to the beginning of the whole issue of royalty.

When I came on to wikipedia, its 'royal' pages were an embarrassing joke. Contributors were insisting on putting in royalty under their supposed personal name rather than title. We had a blazing edit war just to stop the Prince of Wales being called Charles Windsor!!! A group of us got together and over two months tore all the pages to shreds, worked on a template, reviewed names (I myself was on to Buckingham Palace, St. James's Palace, the Governors-General of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the office of the King of Spain, the press office of the Queen of the Netherlands, etc. for factually accurate information.) Eventually the naming conventions pages were agreed, after drafts being circulated by email on the mailing list, in talk pages, etc.

After all that was done (and battles fought to get people to accept royal titles, etc), one problem hit that caused nightmares. That was whether to use styles. The same group of us who had done the initial work (I had pulled together all the opinions expressed into a workable solution on all the other royal 'issues') reviewed what to do about styles. A consensus was agreed. I was asked to write it up but as I knew I would be off wikipedia for quite a few months I passed on it. I don't know if the agreement was actually written up by anyone in the Naming Conventions but that is what was meant to happen.

After reviewing all the evidence, the general agreement was that using as opposed to explaining styles is best avoided for a number of reasons:

1. Most encyclopaedias do not use them in articles but (at best) explain them in a line or two;
2. People from cultures where they are not familiar with them frequently interpret them as a POV expression of wikipedia's views on a person, and so wage constant edit wars on pages where they appear. Various pages on popes have have edit wars over the style 'Holiness' which some people (ludicrously IMHO) interpret as a wikipedia expression of belief that a pope is holy.
3. Using styles in some contexts may be ludirously provocative. For example, millions believe that Pope Pius XII was pro-nazi, or at least not sufficiently pro-democracy, and that millions died by his inactions. It is a claim based on a chronic ignorance of how one researches history, which is that one shouldn't blame people from making what history sees as a wrong judgment when it was made by them on the basis of information that they didn't have, but we do. However calling Pius Venerable automatically sujectivises the article by appearing to judge him as venerable when in reality the only people who use such a term are a small minority of catholics, based on his path to sainthood.
4. Using styles for royalty poses complicated problems where a dispute exists over styles and titles.
   1. The King of Sweden and the European Court of Human Rights have clashed over the status of some minor royals' titles.
   2. What happens if there is a dispute over whether a monarch has abdicated in the process of declaring a republic. Call Constantine II of Greece His Majesty and you will infuriate republicans in Greece. Leave it out and Greek royalists, who believe he is the legitimate king and should be treated the same way as other royals, will go ballistic. And both sides with have an edit war. Ditto with the current prime minister of Bulgaria, who is a king who never abdicated.
   3. What of where there is a controversy over whether someone who married into a royal family can use a style? i) if Diana, Princess of Wales was still alive, and we didn't put in a HRH they'd be an edit war from those who thought she should never have been denied one. ii) ditto with the Duchess of Windsor.
   4. What do we do with Princess Louise of Wessex? Her parents say to call her Lady Louise and drop the HRH. But technically she is a princess with a HRH.
   5. Should Princes William and Harry be called HRH, given that they asked people not to call them by that, but it is their official style?
   6. Should the Prince of Naples, the no-longer exiled crown prince of Italy, be called HRH?
5. Use styles for royals and the question is raised: why aren't republican heads of state also described using styles? And that is the ultimate hornets' nest. Millions still think Saddam is the legitimate president of Iraq. Some of them may want to put in the President of Iraq's style on his page. Others say 'no way' and take it out again. Is Jean Bertrand Aristide the real president of Haiti or not? Should the Haitian president's style be used in his article?
6. If royalty and presidents have their styles used, should members of parliament? Members of local authorities? Members of town councils? University graduates? Every clergyman from every religion? Should formal styles be used even when the office holder doesn't use it normally and it has not been used for decades. Should the president of Ireland be called Excellency? Should the US president be called Honourable and Excellency? (And how would wikipedia look millions of people opposed to Bush worldwide if we called him excellency when no-one else does?)

These are just a few examples of some of the problems. There are many more. If you put in styles you basically make every single article with one a potential target for edit wars and vandalism. When I left one article on a pope was the subject of an edit war about the style of Holiness. When I came back 6 months later a new group of people were fighting exactly the same war, making exactly the same arguments. And if we are stupid enough to start papal articles with His Holiness the same thing will be happening two years from now. Every time a new 'generation' of users comes on to wikipedia the same percentage of each new group will take one look, scream "pov" and start the edit war all over again.

Right Honourable may be simply a style to you and me, but there are many people who when they see it interpret it at best as a bit if of puke-inducing sugarly OTT language that should be scrapped alongside the hereditary peers in the Lords. Others think it is a POV statement, that you are saying 'this man is right and honourable'. The idea that wikipedia has grown beyond that is ridiculous. It never will. They can't get away with the Charles Windsor nonsense because the article is now so academically written that people who don't know their facts back away from it rather than showing their ignorance. And that is exactly how to solve the problem. Don't use the style, explain it. If you write His Holiness Pope John Paul II you are guaranteed to have people take one look at it, scream 'what the hell? What's with this 'Holiness' bullshit' and delete it over and over and over for months and years to come. If you don't use the style but explain it in the context of the article, you make it far harder to justify deleting. And by not using it you again avoid any claims of POV.

You don't seem to realise, Peter, just how thin the ice is over titles here on wikipedia. After months of work on the naming conventions on royalty, having discussed it ad nausaum with people, a few of us spent weeks and weeks and weeks changing all articles to the one format. One day a new user came on, took one look at the structure we had put into peer's titles and went ballistic, screaming in effect 'what is all this gargage about Lord so-and-so and Viscount such-and-such.' An edit war erupted. Some of us working to solve the names mess raised it on the mailing list. To our horror, nearly 50% of people in replies (including some of the most respected wikipedians) came back saying 'yeah. Lets scrap these royal titles and this imperialist nonsense once and for all. Everyone should be a plain Mr. and Ms.' I was so pissed off I left wikipedia for a month. I guarantee if you keep using styles in the way you want you will provoke someone in the 'this is all imperialistic nonsense' brigade and if they raise it, you will be swamped with complaints and every single style will be removed. (I had to fight some attempts on the votes for deletion page to delete the style definition because people thought a style was a load of pompous and irrelevant nonsense. I was actually suprised when I came back to find that it was still on wikipedia. I presumed that it would have been deleted, given that most of those who had done the work on the royal pages had left; some in frustration at the attitude of so many people.

Sorry for the length of this - the bottom line is

1. styles can look too POV
2. they are guaranteed to constantly provoke edit wars
3. they are a proverbial hornets' nest of problems over whether republican heads of state should also have styles attached, the status of ex-royals, etc
4. they are not used in encyclopaedias
5. in a row the likelihood is that the community, as it nearly did over titles, will vote to scrap them entirely
6. you can avoid all allegations of POV, all edit wars, all nightmarish rows, not to mention their entire removal in the event of a row with someone who convinces people with a 'what is all this imperialist rubbish' argument, simply by contextualising and explaining the style in the text rather than using it. FearÉIREANN 17:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(BTW - the boss interrupted me, hence the half save on your page. And sorry about the length of this. But it is a far more complex issue than you realise. I don't think you know the background.)

You completely missed the point.

1. It isn't about some things being right and some things being wrong. 'The Right Honourable Tony Blair' and 'Tony Blair' are both right. One however matches the wikipedia rule of simplicity and accuracy, the other breaks it.

2. If it was decided (and it would be an extremely foolish decision) to include styles then in all fairness all styles from all holders of styles must be included. Which means, irrespective of whether it is normally used, the formal style of Bush must be used, of every Roman Catholic, anglican, protestant, jewish and other clergyman must be used. All US congressmen must be called 'honourable'. The right styles of all MEPs, members of parliament of each and every parliament in the world and every head of state must be used. If Idi Amin was still president of Uganda, then he would have to be referred to by the right style. Clergymen who had buggered little boys and been imprisoned for it, but who had not been defrocked yet, would be entitled to be called by their style in here.

Quite frankly the whole idea is nutty. It also breaks the fundamental requirement that wikipedia sets, simplicity. Saying Princess Diana rather than Diana, Princess of Wales or more correctly since her death in standard academic format Lady Diana Spencer is out because there never was such a person as Princess Diana (I had such a hassle trying to get a lot of people to stop calling her that in here). Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton is necessary because he was variously known by either or both names. But the Right Honourable John Major is wrong to use when his name was simply John Major and at the 'Right Honourable' is rarely used in Britain and hardly ever used outside it. This is an encyclopaedia, not a book on royalty, and it has got to use language appropriate to the readership. As to the suggestion that wikipedians are less likely to challenge titles than in the past, that simply is not true. In reality, people come and go all the time. You have no idea if someone will come on next week or next month (or in an hours time) and go ballistic at all the 'His Holiness' stuff and start round 8 of that never ending battle. And yes many of the biggest names in here are as opposed to using peerage titles at all today as they were one or two years ago. (One very prominent one is always joking to me in correspondence that he is just waiting for someone to make a "very stupid mistake" in the area of names. Once that opening is made he says he will enthusiastically vote to get off "all this royal and imperialistic nonsense".) And this is a very prominent activist here. One can but hope that the grossly unencyclopaedic use of styles here does not become that big mistake. FearÉIREANN 17:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW - just checked. I have six emails. Five are from wikipedians suggesting that styles should be deleted completely. One wants to keep them but wants them toned down.

Warning vandals

When reverting a page or template, especially "inthenews", make sure that you put a {{*test*}} (without the astericks) on it. If it's something that affects the main page, I personally go straight for {{*test3*}} or higher. -- user:zanimum

There wasn't much point, since I'd blocked the IP immediately after reverting. I think the rather prominent notice saying "IF YOU VANDALISE THIS TEMPLATE, YOU WILL BE ***BLOCKED*** IMMEDIATELY" at the top of Template:In the news is warning enough. Proteus (Talk) 17:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, great. I hadn't checked that out. Should still leave something on their talk pages, just in case they vandalise once their block is up, we know to treat them more seriously than others. -- user:zanimum

request

Can you please not revert the gay template discussion? My edits of the gay holocaust article were in good faith but has now been totally reverted, I have been attacked on the talk page, and I will not edit it again. I don't want to be smeared like that user was trying to do, because this is my real name and I don't want to get in trouble. Thank you Noah Peters 21:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters

peers

Is there any case where a peer's article title would include all of his middle names? I can think of one, and that would be Spencer Compton Cavendish, who was named after the prime minister (or maybe vice versa). I was wondering, because Wikipedia is highly incongruous on that topic - you've been moving all the articles to no middle name titles, while most links have the middle names... thanks, ugen64 00:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace

Thanks for the advice I've changed it accordingly. Should it be 'The Queen' or 'the Queen' ? Giano 17:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks I want to get this right if only by my own standards which is to show no intentional disrespect to the The Queen, but not have the page obsequious either, hence I have done HM Queen Elizabeth II once and then The Queen thereafter. If this goes to featured article (and I'm not sure it should) I expect there will be a lot of transatlantic monarchist versus republican flak over titles and honorific, but to refer to her as Queen Elizabeth II every time is long-winded, and 'she' and 'her' sounds a little disrespectful;' Queen Elizabeth' is the late Queen Mother - but someone will say she is not the only Queen, well I take the view in Buckingham Palace she is. I would be interested in your opinion.

My subject is architecture, which is why I started to interfere on the page, but I think this page needed sorting in view of how many pages link to it, and also give The White House a run for its money! but my only knowledge of titles etc. comes through architecture and the Italian title system which is not quite the same, and nobody cares so much anyway - probably a good thing too! Giano 19:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS I used to have the user name "Ragussa" further up your page, amazing how often titles and architecture run together isn't it?

Thankyou - we shall see! Giano 19:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Earls of Bridgewater, Third Creation

Would you please check

==Earls of Bridgewater, Third Creation, (1999)==

* Andrew Rose, 1st Earl of Bridgewater (b.1973)

in Earl of Bridgewater? I'm skeptical about an Earldom being created for a 25-year old nowadays. --StanZegel 05:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire

Hi there. Actually, your claim in Order of the British Empire that Jack Ryan is only ever jokingly referred to as "Sir John" isn't actually true. The Queen herself refers to him as "Sir John" quite seriously several times in Patriot Games. Not that I'm objecting to your removing it from the article. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 19:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

English Wikipedia

Hi, I actually agree with you about the "International Wikipedia (which, by the way, happens to be written mostly in English)" (it's really irritating that e.g German speakers have a place where they can retreat to and do what they want, but the English-speakers, unique among Wikipedians, have no such refuge) but unless we actually get counted consensus on "use the most common English version" (and I don't have the energy to start/run a poll), and really enforce it (e.g. on Zurich, etc) I'd rather just change the damn policy page to reflect reality. Noel (talk) 21:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As to finding the page, I would make it a critical part of any changed policy (and I don't think anyone would disagree) that there MUST be redirects from all common English forms. That would definitely take care of links/searches inside Wikipedia - I'm not sure if it would take care of the Google search issue, though. (And if not, this should be brought out.)

And I agree with you that "Zürich" is completely idiotic, but... it was debated at length, and trying to change it is just going to cause a flame-fest. (BTW, I loved your line about "I'm sick of being told by people who aren't native speakers of my language that I'm using it wrongly ... using its English name (or with English spelling, which normally leaves out diacritics)". So much for cultural relativism, or whatever the PC-jargon term is for the claim that every local custom is inherently valid!) Noel (talk) 22:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS: Just checked, and for both Google and Yahoo, searching for "Zurich", Wikipedia's entry shows up on the 3rd page of results for pages in English; searching for "Zürich" gives it on the second page on Google, third on Yahoo. Noel (talk) 22:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Middlesex and UtherSRG

Hi. Please see User talk:UtherSRG regarding the move of Middlesex, England. Jooler 00:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scottish earls

Hi, I was wondering if you might take a look at my comments at Talk:List of Earls. I was wondering about order of precedence for the early Scottish earls. john k 04:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Editing Thatcher

If you want to put your view across about not editing articles do so in the Overweight articles section at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as you seem to have strong feelings about the issue. You can also see how I am attempting to "enforce" my "demands" which I know you want to do. Squiquifox 03:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Come back soon

I hope you come back soon and don't let the irritants of wikipedia keep you away for long. john k 23:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, it's been a month. Please come back soon! :) ugen64 04:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta -> Kolkata name change

Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zürich to Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Being a contributor to the previous vote you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move in the new vote on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

It seems that people are needed to defend the His Holiness style on Pope Benedict XVI. There is a campaign right now from a handful of people to unilaterally remove it. (I told you this would happen.) FearÉIREANN 23:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back! -- Emsworth 20:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back, sir! Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hiya and welcome back. :) ugen64 22:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Re your vote on styles. I understand and agree. But only casting one vote is effectively a vote against Alternative 1 because it means that less opposition is recorded against its nearest rival. Ireland uses an electoral system called Proportional Representation using a Single Transferable Vote. It works on the same principle as the one being used (only less complicated! I never thought I would find a system more complicated than PR.STV!) What you do is give your bottom preference to the people you want to defeat, and spread your vote in a way that boosts the rivals of the alternative you do not want. So if for example, you find Alternative 3 the one you least like, give it your bottom vote so that opposition to it is recorded. And spread the other votes to ensure the weakest get votes ahead of it. If for example in Ireland I want to ensure candidate 'x' of Fianna Fáil is elected, and ensure candidate 'y' of Sinn Féin is defeated, and there are 15 candidates, I give my number 1 to 'x', my number '15' to 'y' and spread my other votes to ensure that all other candidates beat 'y'.

Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil voters famously used to practice a 'first and only choice' vote by just voting for their own preferred candidate and then stopping. They eventually realised that they were wasting their vote because they weren't using it to block those they were most opposed to, or to build up the rivals to the candidate they were opposed to. To stop Alternative 3 winning, if that is what you want, give it your fifth choice and give your second, third and fourth choices to the weakest options.

Just be careful though not to copy everyone else doing it. If everyone gives the same other alternatives the same order of votes they may win. So if option 4 gets a lot of 2s, give it a 4. Doing a full vote right down the line will have the effect of strengthening Alternative 1 vis-a-vis 3 or whatever. Just voting for 1 and stopping actually weakens it against its rivals if everyone else votes down the line, because while their opposition to different alternatives is recorded, by stopping at 1 your's isn't. And the winner won't be decided by who has more votes for, but which faces the least opposition. Slán FearÉIREANN^(talk) 00:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring my vote on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI. Just who does Whig think he is anyway? Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That would be quite a laugh, were he to be so bold. If jguk starts an RfC I'd be happy to participate. Maybe, once the dust settles, we can return to the (comparatively) humdrum question of the styles themselves! Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

James Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie

I'm afraid that you won't get an apology for Adraeus' dogmatic assertion that turned out to be mistaken, nor will he back down, no matter how many arguments and how much evidence you provide (e.g., Talk:Atheism/dashes: "I really don't care what sources you cite for incorrectly using em and en dashes. I am a professional typographer. This is my business. You are obviously not a typographer. When it comes to typography, I know exactly what I'm talking about whereas you are apparently clueless. I am right. You are wrong. That's bottomline."). You'll have realised that, for all his dogmatism about the use of English, Adraeus isn't a native speaker, and often comes out with some peculiar locutions. You can only keep returning the article to correct usage, perhaps going to RfC for outside comments. Be careful of 3RR, though; you're getting close. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I have my eye on the article. And don't worry — if you break the 3RR you won't have to block yourself, I'll do it for you (if you promise to block me in similar circumstances). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Marquess of Bute

Does it really matter if the link is written as "[[John Patrick Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute]]" or "[[John Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute|John Patrick Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute]]"? They go to the same place, and the former is simpler wikicode. It's not a big issue, I suppose, but redirects are our friends, we should take advantage of them (isn't that's what friends are for?). I feel like I'm becoming a bit of a redirect evangelist lately. :) sjorford →•← 16:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right that it takes less server effort, although I don't think redirects are bringing the servers to their knees exactly. And as for it looking more professional - I guess that's true, as they don't see the "redirected from" line, but I don't find that too much of a worry. There is one more point in favour of redirects - using "what links here" you can see which pages use which version of a name to link to the article. This can be useful in naming disputes - but if people go through and systematically change all links to point directly, this sort of meta-information is lost. That's not an issue in this case, but I still very quietly go "grr" whenever I see the edit summary "bypassing redirect". It ain't necessary, kids!

Okay, rant over ;) sjorford →•← 16:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Governors-General

You may want to look at Government of Australia. One user is intent on claiming that the Governor-General is the head of state. Others have disagreed but to no avail. User:Adam Carr is convinced at this stage that the user is a troll. I am suspicious. Independent observers would be welcome. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 00:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Roger_Mortimer,_4th_Earl_of_March

Hi, I see you have some interest/expertise with the peerage. Can you check out this page? I'm not sure if Philippa Plantagenet gets counted as an Earl, if Lionel of Antwerp actually preceded Mortimer, what number Earl of Ulster Roger was, etc., and while I ought to just go look it up someplace, maybe you have the answer? Kaisershatner 16:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have to go look up jure uxoris, but I appreciate your corrections. Kaisershatner 13:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Lulu

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. A new issue has arisen. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 20:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Hello. Persuant to your comment, I have created a second RFC against Lulu. It is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2. Perhaps you could check it out. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 11:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia

I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate. Adam 23:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

My proposed policy position is this:

• That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:

1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy

2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia

3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.

• That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
• Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed. Adam 23:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

RfAr

Please note that a Request for Arbitration [1] has been opened regarding the prefixed style NPOV dispute, the RfC which was opened with respect to my account, and personal attacks made and restored by certain parties. I have named you as an involved party and therefore I am notifying you of this RfAr in order that you may respond accordingly. Whig 12:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)