User talk:Eddo~enwiki

The reason why royal articles on consorts start with their personal maiden name or maiden title, not with their consort title, is because that is the standard biographical way articles on dead consorts are written here and elsewhere. Consorts don't have numbers or ordinals so it is impossible to call them by consort name. Otherwise we would have at least 4 English Queen Catherines; Catherine of Aragon, Catherine Howard, Catherine Parr and Catherine of Braganza. We'd have two English/British Queen Elizabeths (Elizabeth of York and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon) as well as Queen Elizabeth of Greece, etc. So consorts always revert to maiden name/title on death. The Queen Mother hasn't been moved yet to the Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as she is only recently dead but probably will be soon. Also, most royal consorts go through numerous name and title changes during their lives so it is normal to start them off at their own personal birth name or birth title.

Hence historians never write "Queen Mary" but instead Mary of Teck, "Queen Catherine" but Catherine of Aragon, "Queen Alexandra" but Alexandra of Denmark, "Queen Ingrid of Denmark" but Ingrid of Sweden (her pre-marital name), etc. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 4 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

Larry Campbell
I find excessive honorifics to create something of a fawning tone inconsistent with the concept of NPOV and if you look at articles on other mayors you'll see we usually just have a name, not "His Worship" or "His Honour" Homey 03:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we also begin articles in the form of Mr. John Smith, Esq.?Homey 03:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Please go to Canadian_wikipedians%27_notice_board/discussion Homey 03:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's nothing personal. It's important to have a consistent style, however, and as wikipedia articles do not style mayors as His Worship or His Honour or ambassadors as His Excellency there's no justification to make Larry Campbell of Frank McKenna exceptions. Let's see what others think and if there's a consensus against honorifics you should respect that. Homey 12:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Silverhorse
I've started an RfC on Silverhorse. I'd appreciate if you checked it out and commented or endorsed it. Thanks! Requests for comment/Silverhorse --Golbez 09:09, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Titles
Hi Eddo, regarding your messages on "Canadian Titles", I am not sure whether an agreement has been reached. As discussed in Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion, there are suggestions that the Honorific are to be removed. If it is the concensus that Manual of Style (biographies) are to be ignored as long as it is not excessive (I would not object to this), can we document it somewhere so that people can refer to it? Thanks a lot. Happy Edit! Regards, --Hurricane111 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Honorifics
As I recall, I argued before that we should be consistent. When it was pointed out to me that numerous articles have some honorifics I conceded the point on honorifics as I couldn't find anything in the style manual supporting me. Since it seems the styel manual is quite clear on the topic I think we should abide by it. Homey 00:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

HRH at Order of Precedence
I don't really care either way. Perhaps they could be introduced as "The Sovereign and the Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom (i.e., those entitled to be called His/Her Royal Highness):". By the way, should this discussion be moved to the article talk page? -Rrius (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Eddo. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Eddo~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ivy Winthrop


The article Ivy Winthrop has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Multiple issues, including notability issues, and untouched for 10 years. No credible sources. I could stubify it, but probably better just to WP:TNT"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)