User talk:Cooldoug111

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Sincerely, Ryan 02:29, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop changing the Grace Kelly article. It is the agreed format here under the Naming conventions, and in historiography generally, to refer to a deceased consort by maiden name and style (if any), not last style on death, etc. Only kings, queens and princes regnant retain their style in biography on death.FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Naming Conventions
hi there,

thank you for your mail. I am not accusing anyone of anything, and I´m afraid you are mixing up some points here that were never the centre of the debate. If you read the points and (my?) comments carefully, you will see that that was never the issue. thank you.. Gryffindor 11:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC) ps: I´m sure you did not notice it, but I have also stated on my talk page (top) to please not to bold or CAPITALISE any words in a message.

Doug,

I guess you aren't aware of it. Wikipedia has finally reached a consensus on what to do with styles. Styles are no longer to be used in royal and papal articles but via a set of specially designed infoboxes in articles which list the formal, spoken and alternative variants of a style. The style on Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall was removed as per this policy and replaced by the infobox. I'm sorry if you missed the debate. It was flagged all over the place. There was over 90% agreement to move to that format as an alternative to the endless insertion and reversion battles. Both sides adopted it as the best compromise.

In the case of Camilla, the infobox is

Infoboxes have been inserted in many UK royal pages, many European royal pages, about a third of papal pages, and will eventually be inserted in all pages about royalty. Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 22:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you propose it on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). I'll support it all the way. (I've put a lot of work in on the styles thing so I'll let someone else take the lead for once!) Fear ÉIREANN \(caint)  23:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

reply
fair point. Wikipedia is stuck between a rock and a hard place. ,  is the format for ex-wives of peers whether royal or not. Technically Sophie should simply be in as The Countess of Wessex and the Prince of Wales as The Prince of Wales. But we need to use a name for disambigulation purposes, so Charles, Prince of Wales etc were adopted. (He had previously been in as Charles Windsor!!!.

Perhaps one solution might be to use the for non-divorced royals, so it would be Sophie, the Countess of Wessex but Sarah, Duchess of York. Using HRH is too complicated because, to be frank, it was being overused and risked turning NPOV articles in rather OTT endorsement of monarchy. (One paragraph I came across spoke of 'HRH so and so, the son of HRH so and so and HRH so and so, was married to HSH so and so, the daughter of HIH so and so and HIH so and so. HRH so and so and HRH so and so and three children; HRH so and so, HRH so and so and HRH so and so.' Encyclopaedias really can't do that. One mention that someone was a HRH/HM/HSH or whatever is OK. But articles were going way too far.)

What we could debate is the sparing usage of, say, one HRH per person, maybe in the second paragraph. I think however using the might enable a clear distinction to be made between a divorced ex-royal and a disambigulated royal. Any thoughts?

(BTW I am astonished at how easy in the end it was to find a consensus that everyone from Astro to Lulu could agree on. It seems to work perfectly and the response so far seems universally positive. And to think one month ago it seemed insoluble. Obviously miracles do happen. I guess if we can solve that anything on Wikipedia could be soluble.) Fear ÉIREANN \(caint)  23:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Katrina
I may not have made myself clear. The crying wolf I was mentioning was about New Orleans. There has been no people killed there so far. I do think the Hurricane is a major event, but the coverage has been way over the top. And these huuricanes seem to come and go on a regular basis, in that area. Monsoons come and go in Asia to, but usually only get a small mention. leistung 10:15, 31 August 2005 (CET)

Hi. Events are changing all the time. I did admit that I underestimated the scope. (See Crying Wolf 2). The event has now become very serious, and could worsen still. All I have been trying to say is that the media hypes up small events in the USA all the time, like the Athrax reporting. The USA has not had a serious disaster, to my mind since 1906. The Anchorage could qualify. Katrina is shaping into a major disaster, and I don't think the USA is prepared. Perhaps things might change now with the "shot of reality". I am living in Switzerland, and we are constantly prepared for disaster, and sound a nuclear alarm every October. Premises are heavily protected against looting and civil disobedience by the authorities. We do have large anti-globalism demonstrations here, where demostrators systematically try to smash out beautiful trains. The police soon tear gas them into submission. I cannot understand that Walmart would not be protected by their staff. It has so many staff. The large companies should also give away food, as people are desparate.

I have no doubt that your concerns about what I have said are genuine. I am learning all the time about what I say too. Leistung 09:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Princess Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg
Hi Doug,

Just wanted to say again that I completely agreed with you on her name. But it seems that some people have a problem with putting "Prince(ss)" or any other royal title in the title of an article. I have a huge problem with most of the British Royal Family, especially The Duke of York, Earl and Countess of Wessex, and most of the Royal Dukes. Having The Countess of Wessex under Sophie, Countess of Wessex, makes her look like the divorced wife of the Earl of Wessex.

I agree with naming her as you stated, and will back any change that you would like to propose to the horribly named page. You can count on me.

Prsgoddess187 13:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. I think that your ideas for naming are perfect. I can understand that people want names, but a title is a title, and I think that they should be under their official styles. But somehow I think that we will never get the rest of Wikipedia to agree with us. I was getting drawn into a stupid edit war with Arrigo, and I should know better. He/she is completely against having titles in the titles, hope that makes as much sense as it did in my head. Hope to hear from you soon. Annamarie-Prsgoddess187 01:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I have only been with WP for a few months, if you know who we could talk to, I would be more than willing to back you up. Since most people know the royalty of the world by titles and not their names, even with disambiguations, titles in the titles would be better.Prsgoddess187 01:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I am located in the Orlando area of Florida, USA. Where are you???Prsgoddess187 02:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a while to get back, I was thinking about another article. I will bring the matter up with some of the other Wikipedians and see what they think.Prsgoddess187 23:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I will add a link to it on some of the other pages with disputed titles. Hopefully, we won't get shot down too badly. Have a good one. Annamarie 00:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Great to hear it. Been keeping up with it on the side, trying to make a change on one of the Dutch royal pages. Of course, someone else titled wrong. I will try to figure it out, or get someone a little more experienced to help out.Prsgoddess187 23:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The page on Princess Maxima of the Netherlands. She is married to the Prince of Orange so they titled the page Princess of Orange. But the Dutch government says that Prince(ss) of Orange is for the heir only. Put in a Requested Move, so we will see how that goes.Prsgoddess187 23:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I never noticed it before either. I was browsing through the official webpages of the European monarchies this weekend, and noticed it on the Dutch website. I saw that the first line was changed but not the actual title. My husband thinks that it is weird that I know all of this inane royal trivia, but it gives me a hobby, so he can't complain too much :) Prsgoddess187 00:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Monegasque princely family
First, bullets don't work that way. You can't start at the second level; it adds a second bullet next to the first, which is unsightly. Second, please consider Civility when making comments in the future. &mdash; Dan | Talk 00:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Page moves
I don't see the point in the proposed move at Charles, Prince of Wales and suspect it will go down light a lead balloon. There is a case in the case of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall as that form could be mistaken for meaning that she was the divorced wife of the Duke of Cornwall. But Charles can hardly be mistaken for the ex-husband of the Prince of Wales. I'd suggest abandoning the Charles move and instead proposing at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) that wives (to distinguish them from ex-wives) have the in the title. Once off renaming is a bad idea and won't work because everything is supposed to be part of a series following the same rules. (Because it is in the naming conventions many users will vote against the idea on an individual page, but might be more open to the idea at the NC page. The absence or otherwise of the for princes is irrelevant. There is a real case in the case of wives, but that would need to be decided centrally, not piecemeal in individual articles. FearÉIREANN 01:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the proposed move tags and left a note on the page saying that this needs to be decided centrally on the NC talk page. That way, all pages could be moved, or not moved, in one policy decision. Holding the same debate over multiple pages would be complex, complicated, and could potentially produce a mess if some pages decided to use the and some didn't. As the articles are all covered by one set of rules the change should be made there rather than on a page by page basis. The two ideas, adding in the for princes and their wives should also be voted on separately. I'd support moving the wives, but would regard the princes' moves as pointless. You might win the wives argument on its own. I doubt if you'd win the prince's one. My advice would be to drop the prince's one and focus on the real case vis-a-vis the wives. FearÉIREANN 01:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Template- Belgian King??
Why did u make this template, there was a much better one there before that was standard for all monarchs, and much more accurate. And his heir aparent is not Duke Philipe it is Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant, there is a difference. Mac Domhnaill 02:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When I visited those articles there was no infobox template, I did not know the existance of a generic template, furthermore I think it looks fine :)
 * Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant is too long of a title to fit in the info box. I merely shortened it to Duke Philipe you can change it to whatever you feel is more acurate but please if you can try to make it short so it looks nice :) -- Cool CatTalk 12:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if I may have seemed rude. There had been a template there, but apparently it was not you who removed it. Thank-you Mac Domhnaill 23:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats alright, so is it better now? All sourted? The Belgian king articles were a mess due to misaligned infoboxes... :( -- Cool CatTalk 10:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Luxembourg Grand Ducal Family
I gather you picked up on this from the template's talk page but actually, my mistake was resolved not long after the discussion on my talk page back in July. As much as you'd appreciate me reverting changes, I draw your attention to the history tab on the template's page, which will let you know that I didn't remove them again and that it was an unregistered user who did (and that you're probably more than capable and certainly more than welcome to do add them again yourself). Thanks Craigy (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
Why the unfriendly tone? My username in quotes, "get your facts straight"... Sooner or later you're bound to make a mistake yourself - isn't Wikipedia a forum for learning? Hope you have a better day tomorrow. Denvoran 22:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

FRHSD
All my work on the Freehold Regional High School District has been done as part of WikiProject New Jersey, which aims to fill the many wholes that have existed in New Jersey's wiki pages. I've created pages for about 60 of the 75 regional and consolidated school districts in NJ, FRHSD among them. My starting point is data from the National Center for Education Statistics, a branch of the United States Department of Education. Their data is a year old, and in rapidly growing districts can be way off. See the NCES link for FRHSD to see my sources for the numbers I used for FRHSD and the individual schools. As I understand it, we shouldn't use our own research, but use publicly available information that can be referenced to the source. Often, I can get more current info from the district's web site, but I couldn't find anything. Any pointers would be great! I invite you to join WP:NJ and see if there is anything you would like to work on. Alansohn 04:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslav ex-Royal family
Hi, you put on a talk page concerning the Yugoslav royal family that Prince Peter is still a prince - he isn't. He's styled as one for sure, but not titled, he has no royal rank, precedence nor privilege, and is not legally recognised. The Yugoslav royal pages talk as though the family is still on the throne ("Hereditary Prince Peter??" Heir to what? A non-existent throne?) Their styles are by courtesy only (like the Germans) but this is not mentioned and is misleading.

Grand Ducal Consorts
Hey Doug,

I have started a discussion here to sort out the article titles for the consorts of Grand Dukes. Would love to hear your opinion. Thanks, Prsgodd e ss187 02:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretender infobox
It isn't a monarch template. It is a pretender template. That it is not a monarch template is shown in four ways.
 * It explicitly states the guy is a pretender to a throne, not a monarch.
 * It uses personal name, not title or claimed regnal name, at the top.
 * It is deliberately placed differently (not at the top but down a paragraph) to avoid any equation with a monarch or a pope box.
 * It deliberately uses a different colour scheme from all royal boxes, using green, a colour not associated with monarchy, rather than purple, red, yellow, blue etc, all colours associated with monarchy. That shade of green was deliberately picked to be as far away as possible from monarchical colours.

The box was created to pull together some important facts on pages about people who are pretenders to thrones, namely the personal name of the person, what regnal name their supporters claim they have (and the world "claim" is explicitly used in the box), when they were born, when the monarchy was abolished, who was the last monarch, their relationship back to that person and the royal house they head. Reading pages on pretenders it became obvious that information was scattered, in some places had to follow, POV captions were being slipped in under pictures, etc. This way, the picture is captionless, the key facts are pulled together, their status as a pretender, not a monarch is explicitly stated (so making POV edits calling people "king" or "queen" more difficult if there is a whopping big box saying pretender on the page) and all the pages that are already themed by a category have a themed neutral graphic. Graphics on themes, whether people, places, titles, claims to titles or whatever are standard all over Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ernest Augustus V, Prince of Hanover
As you have commented on this talk page before, you may want to comment/vote on the current proposed name change at Ernest Augustus V, Prince of Hanover. Lethiere 22:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretenders Ernst August
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; what are the correct ordinals anyway; and Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 10:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Athina Onassis
Hi! Awhile ago, you posted on my talk page re:moving the page. I moved it to "Athina Onassis" then back to Roussel when it created an issue. I understand the reasons and at the time, I felt that it might be best to have it stay at Roussel. However, there is news about Athina recently that causes me to reconsider proposing a move. There is now a World-class jumping event named Athina Onassis to debut in the new year, around August or September 2007. I think she is using this name totally, in all aspects of her life. In competitions, she is listed this way, or really, it's more correct to say she is "Athina Onassis de Miranda" or for short, in competitions, "Athina Miranda." So for this reason, I would like to reoffer this proposal, but I don't know how to do it. Can you help or do you have thoughts on it? Thank you for your time and thoughts! --Ashley Rovira 15:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Grace Kelly
Hi,

We are Cornell University students working on a class project that involves the editing of Wikipedia pages. We are all very new to the Wikipedia editing process, and as such we were hoping for some feedback from some more experienced editors on our edits to the Grace Kelly article. We were wondering if you could assist us by verifying our sources, which we posted [|] on the article's talk page. We were also hoping to make some minor changes to the structure of the article and were hoping for some input on that as well. Our plan for the new structure is as follows:

PERSONAL LIFE
 * Family
 * Marriage
 * Wedding
 * Later Years
 * Death

Career
 * Movies
 * Awards
 * Fashion
 * Modeling

Legacy
 * Style
 * Links to the Community
 * Historical Sites
 * Philanthropy

Our group members have the following user pages:

- dcl248

- Kategruenberg

- Mfrosselot

- CeciliaIachetta

In this link you can find our Wikipedia class page and the description of our assignment: Cornell University Online Communities (Fall 2014)

We hope to hear back from you soon! Kategruenberg (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)