User talk:Miesianiacal/April-September 2011

Images for Heraldic badges of the Canadian government
Hello - I was wondering why you removed the images of the heraldic badges from the article? Was the rationale not sufficient? The main point of the article was to include the images together in one place. Is there more I can add to make this acceptable? Please help!

Thanks snd3054 16:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snd3054 (talk • contribs)
 * By Wikipedai's standards, there is unfortunately virtually no acceptable rationale for including non-free images in a list; see WP:NFLISTS and the somewhat related WP:NFG. I personally find Wikipedia's rules on image use to be overly strict, but they are what they are, nonetheless. You can try and keep the pictures in the list; but, at some point, a zealous enforcer of the fair use rules (and they are out there) will come upon the article and remove the illustrations him/herself.
 * (PS- Don't forget to sign your posts.) -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that explanation; I'm still quite new at this. In your opinion, is there any way to allow the images to be used in a single article - short of writing a separate article on each? For some of the badges, I had to do a lot of digging to find anything about them, such as the CGG badge and the badge of Correctional Services (due to the Federal Identity Program's restrictions on use). I find it sad that GC departments generally don't use their badges publicly. Sorry about not signing the post - I tried typing the four "~"....snd3054 17:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snd3054 (talk • contribs)
 * I can't think of any way to do what you suggest. The images would be fine as illustrations on the articles about the organisations the badges are related to, though; I'd hate to see them go to waste. Perhaps you could seek more (and probably better) advice at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content; I'm not much good with this subject beyond the basics.
 * As for signing: There's an icon at the top of the edit window showing a little pencil beside a scribble; that inserts the signature code for you. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Map for royal wedding article
Why?: "left-aligned imgs should not be immediately below a section header"; where is this from? and also why is the size of the image changed? The rationale for the large size (350px) is for the ease of the reader, so that they can follow the narrative in the article and the map at the same time. With the current size it is very difficult to see the text and labels. Sodacan (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:IMGSIZE: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". On "good reasons", WP:MOSIMAGES says: "Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart), and which may need larger sizes than usual." However, I personally don't see that the map/diagram, at the default image size I have in my preferences, is so small as to make important detail invisible. Perhaps you need to adjust your preferences? If more than a couple of editors feel the illustration could qualify for a locked larger size, then I'd guess it does (and I just have super eyesight!).
 * I was sure that it was once said somewhere in a WP guideline that left-aligned images shouldn't follow immediately after a section heading, since it was more reader-friendly to start a section at the top-left corner with text, rather than manking readers scan over the image before finidng the beginning of the prose. But, after searching through various relevant areas, I can't find that stipulation anymore. Whether it's still a guideline or not, the direction makes sense, and there doesn't seem to be any reason why the image can't be placed one paragraph following the header. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really mind the left size image stipulation, I was just curious so I can remember in future (and your point does make a lot of sense). However I think the size of the map is important, I made the image specifically simple and the text unusually large and unclustered, so that the content of the article could be easily illustrated. Plus, the reader would then not have to click on the thumbnail and back just to get a clear idea of what is going on. Furthermore the image size (350px) is not unreasonable, it's not like the image took half a page or something. Sodacan (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've waited 24 hours and since you haven't replied, it seems that your undoing of my contribution was based on spurious reasons, and that your objections were based on your personal preferences, I will be reverting my edit back to where it was before. My original intention was based exactly on the consideration as set out by WP:MOSIMAGES, since I am supported by this I see no reason why I have to wait for consensus (WP:BOLD). Best Regards. Sodacan (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your condescending attitude and baseless accusations are entirely unnecessary. I didn't reply as there were some other matters distracting my attention, and, frankly, after reviewing the guidelines and listening to your argument, I wasn't all that concerned about whether or not the image was set to a larger size; I thought I made that clear earlier when I said "If more than a couple of editors feel the illustration could qualify for a locked larger size, then I'd guess it does." My only concern after you just set the image to 350px again was that text was being squeezed between the map and the picture of Westminster Abbey at the right. Hence, I centred the map at the bottom of the section and that seems to have fixed the problem. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

capitalization
Thanks for your other copy-edits this morning to the Background section of the 2011 election article, which improve the flow a fair bit. You might also want to make parallel copyedits at Contempt of Parliament which is where those paragraphs originally came from. On the issue of capitalization, the rule is that a short form referring to a specific, unique institution will retain the upper case when used as a noun. See The Canadian Style section 4.06. Note that The Canadian Style specifically calls for a capital on "Opposition" when used as a short form for the Official Opposition. Another source I found online agrees, stating the rule as follows: "A common noun used alone as a well-known short form of a specific proper name is capitalized." Mathew5000 (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Background" section isn't quite at its best, yet; but, it's getting there. Regarding the capitalisation therein, though, I believe we have to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which says on the relevant matter:
 * ''Generic words for institutions (university, college, hospital, high school) do not take capitals:
 * ''Incorrect (generic): The University offers programs in arts and sciences.
 * ''Correct (generic): The university offers programs in arts and sciences.
 * ''Correct (title): The University of Delhi offers programs in arts and sciences...
 * ''Incorrect (generic): The City has a population of 55,000.
 * ''Correct (generic): The city has a population of 55,000.
 * Correct (title): The City of Smithville has a population of 55,000...
 * Given that, "while parliament was still in session" (for example) is correct, as would be "while the Parliament of Canada was still in session", but "while Parliament was still in session" is not. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The MOS does not cover the case of a specific, unique institution such as Parliament or Congress. It is incorrect to write "while parliament was still in session" without a capital P. Major news sources will invariably capitalize Parliament in this context: even though those news organizations would follow the Wikipedia MOS on the examples you give above, e.g.  "According to the university's website, he was..." (referring to York University). Mathew5000 (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but the MoS does use random institutions as examples to illustrate the rule that applies to all references to institutions. If you believe there's a problem with the MoS, you should raise the matter at the associated talk page. The MoS can be changed by consensus. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Parliament is not a "random institution"! It's the name used for one specific institution located in Ottawa. It isn't referred to with the definite article (as in your examples "the city", "the university") but just called Parliament. The current version of the article looks very odd referring to "parliament" with a lower-case p, unlike any major English-language publisher in Canada. By your logic, we should be writing "house of commons" in all lower-case because the UK also has a house of commons. I raised this at the MOS talk page and so far nobody has argued in favour of the lower-case p. —Mathew5000 (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the Parliament of Canada is a random institution. I said the MoS uses two randomly chosen institutions (the University of Delhi and the City of Smithville) to illustrate its rule that applies to the mention of any and all institutions, so that one can substitute the University of Delhi or the City of Smithville with whatever institution one wishes to write about and understand how to write it. The rule does not tell us to write "the house of commons", since "House of Commons" is a proper title and should thus be capitalised. What it does tell us is that we should write "the house" when refering to the House of Commons without using the full proper title. But, again, if the MoS is incorrect, it should, and can, be changed. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Federal Election
Sorry, didnt mean to revert your useful edits. When I rolled back to capture the list yours were lost in the process but were not intentional. Sorry Macutty (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, no worries, then. I understand mistakes happen; it's just that there've been quite a few inexplicable reverts on that page lately. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It appears even simple grammer, spelling, layout changes are causing controversy for one editor. It seems to have quieted down now, hopefully it will stay that way. Cheers 208.38.59.162 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware, that yourself & Rrius have been included in an SPI? GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't. I was wondering when I might be, though; it always seems to be you that gets that kind of attention! :P -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That 33 fellow, ya'll are having trouble with at Canadian federal election, 2011, has opened it. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I'm shocked we're the same person. It puts our various disagreements over the years in a new, psychologically disturbing light. I hope you're the real one because having a Queen would be awesome. Plus, it would make staying up to watch the Royal Wedding as I did easier to explain. -Rrius (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth Medal tables
Why did you restore the unusual formatting for precedence tables in the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal and Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal tables? —MJBurrage(T•C) 00:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that I forgot about this. I restored the formatting because it is not unusual, given that there is no usual way to colour a table on Wikipedia. This matter also extends beyond the two articles you edited, as there's a common theme throughout articles on pan-national honours (see Order of Merit, Royal Victorian Order, and Venerable Order of Saint John). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This started because I had trouble reading the table on Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal (not enough contrast in the colors you chose). This is the reason there is a standard "wikitable" style. Furthermore using the standard styles means that tables will be readable for users viewing Wikipedia in alternate skins. (Since the skin will have all the related Wikitable CSS redefined.)
 * Looking over the history of the five articles, I discovered that you took the table design you found on Royal Victorian Order (circa July 2009) and changed the design from blue/green (bad for those with color blindness) to white/gray (which I for example have trouble reading). And then created similar tables on the other four articles.
 * Contrast based readability issues are another reason why there is and should be a standard CSS based design. Another reason is that a user can create their own tweaks to the skin for their viewing (but only is special colors are not set arbitrarily on individual articles.
 * So thank you for all of the work in organizing the information into tables on those four articles, but for all the reasons above iI think that the tables on all five pages should use the Wikitable formatting. —MJBurrage(T•C) 04:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was I who formatted the tables on all the articles; I cleaned up almost all the articles on Canadian honours. The point, is, though, that, by changing two tables, as you did, those two came out of synch with the rest.
 * Now, I'm not beholden to the colours, as they are. But there's still no standard table format for Wikipedia; what you link to is just one way to make a table. If you look around, you'll see many different ways in which tables are rendered in this encyclopaedia. If it's contrast that's the problem, the colours can simply be replaced with others. I assume it's the white text on dark grey you're alluding to? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In my experience, the variety of table colouring on Wikipedia comes from either: 1) tables that were created before the wikitable class existed (or possibly just before the editor knew of the class), or 2) wiki-projects that seek to set an identity through a colour scheme different than defaulting to the wikipedia skins. (I've run into the second mostly on film and TV articles.) For the reasons I discussed above I do wish that the wikitable class was pushed more strongly in the MOS rather than just being suggested in the Help files.
 * Regardless, might I assume from your comment that you would not be opposed to me setting all five tables (so long as they are consistent) to use the wikitable class? —MJBurrage(T•C) 05:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If the only thing about the tables that's bothersome is the colours, I'd rather that the only the colours were changed. The class appears very basic and unprofessional. Does this work better for you?:


 * -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  12:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is certainly an improvement contrast wise on my computer, but I cannot speak for those still using CRTs. One of the key reasons for a standard class—based on CSS classes—is that the user can then customize it for their device if required. The white background for the header row also seems odd to me, but that is more of a personal preference.
 * As for professional looking. In my opinion, nothing is more professional for an encyclopedia, than standard design, layout and color scheme. Online this means using default CSS classes whenever possible.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Country !! Preceding !! Following !style="text-align:left;"| 🇨🇦 Canada Order of precedence !style="text-align:left;"| New Zealand Order of precedence !style="text-align:left;"| United Kingdom Order of precedence
 * 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal || Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal
 * Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal || New Zealand 1990 Commemoration Medal
 * Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal || King George V's Long and Faithful Service Medal
 * }
 * The example above uses the simplest coding possible (better for future editors), default formatting for links (better for those with accessibility issues), and default colors (better for those who have chosen to use alternate or customized skins for viewing Wikipedia).
 * I.E. standardize Wikipedia as much as possible, and work to improve the Wikitable class itself if it is deemed lacking in some respect. —MJBurrage(T•C) 16:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, what you show above is somewhat improved on what was done at the two articles in question. However, though I'm all for standardisation, I don't believe tables need look the same across the entire encyclopaedia; colours and other visual patterns can define sub-sets of articles by being used consistently throughout those pages. I'm willing to remove the font colour and lighten up the grey in the left-most column even more:


 * Another question comes up as I think about this, though: What happens with the rather complex precedence table at Royal Victorian Order? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally I would remove the various shades of blue (since the palest ones have contrast issues with light text, and the darkest ones would have contrast issues with black text). The same grouping can be achieved by using a thicker (2-3 pixels) border between countries. Either way, the only significant difference between "Wikitable" and your most recent example is the color of the header row. It is very common for header rows to be shaded darker than body rows which is why it looks odd to me for it to have a white background in your design.
 * Please note that I do not have a personal fondness for the shades of gray used in "Wikitable" rather I fully support the fact that using them 1) makes tables consistent across Wikipedia, and 2) not choosing colours within the table allows for skins to work as intended.
 * While the difference (between Wikitable and your most recent colours) is subtle in "Vector" (the default skin) it could be quite garish in another user's skin. Essentially you are forcing those users who have added [|custom CSS] to see the colors you prefer instead of the colors they prefer.
 * Have you considered adding CSS to your Preferences so that you would see all Wikitables in the colors you prefer? —MJBurrage(T•C) 06:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more than just the colours in certain fields; also different are the dividers and the surrounding border. I'm afraid I simply find the basic table to be, well... Basic. And I still don't see how one would deal with the complex table at Royal Victorian Order other than in a way similar to what's there now.
 * I understand that people with custom preferences will see things differently to those who just use the default. But, that fact has never seemed to lead to a rule that every table, infobox, navbox, and the like should all be rendered in the exact same rudimentary format. If the Wikitable class were improved, I might be more willing to accept it. Until then, though, I doubt I'm going to be terribly passionate about adopting it. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  12:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Below is an example that follows the style guideline—and in so doing allowing the table to match other skins and User preferences—while still clarifying the grouping by country. Wikipedia shouldn't be about the colors you like or the colors I like. It should be about presenting the information in the most accessible manner possible. For tables this is the Wikitable class. P.S. You can specify the colours of all elements in your custom CSS (background, text, links, and border) —MJBurrage(T•C) 15:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I find the above to be inferior in terms of readability. Colour helps, and the basic Wikitable class doesn't provide any. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * With respect to the Royal Victorian Order I just don't see anything that the blue color improves.
 * What does the color say to you?
 * Why should your color preferences take precedence over any other users preferences?
 * —MJBurrage(T•C) 22:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wessex children NPOV
Hullo there. I have opened a new discussion about the styling of HRH The Earl of Wessex's children: here because their articles are currently in violation of the NPOV policy. Do please drop by and have your say (and feel free to pass on the word to other concerned parties!) DBD 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

British Royalty
Hello there, as you're clearly interested in the subject area, I'm inviting your participation in a discussion of recent edits to articles about British royalty (and related articles) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty. Best regards. Rubywine (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Canadian election
The section goes off into too many directions fro there not to be any sub-headings. It also makes it easier to edit. The quote gives an explaination, or at least a partial explaination, on why he resigned. Kingjeff (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote does give an explanation of why Ignatieff resigned. That doesn't explain, though, why more of the quote than is necessary must be included; the point can be made with less words. It's also hard to understand why sub-sections are required, when each sub-section isn't more than a paragraph long, which seems to be discouraged by WP:LAYOUT. It also isn't clear why you reverted some other basic copyediting I did. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it does give a partial explaination. Why didn't Ignatieff stay on as leader of the federal Liberal Party just like John Tory stay on of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives? I've already started a 2nd paragraph in one of the subsections with a 3rd paragraph expected and potentially a 4th. The other sections could easily be expanded. Kingjeff (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not reverting it back to what you want. You discuss it on the talk page. Kingjeff (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you to revert it back to "what I want". I asked you to explain why you reverted against guidelines. It seems you can't, which is what I suspected. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The issues are consensus with the relevant editors. There is a discussion on the lead section on the article's talk page. The gudeline that you referred to does allow for sources to be in the lead section. Kingjeff (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And, as clearly evidenced from that "discussion", the presence or lack thereof of inline citations was not an issue. You've now, however, turned it into one, still with no real explanation as to why. WP:LEADCITE does indeed allow for sources in the lead, if there's reason to have them there, i.e. to support contentious material, facts about a living person, a direct quote, etc. You didn't point to any of those as reason for your revert. I'll ask you to do so at the article talk page. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Spanish monarch
Howdy Mies. If recent appearances of John Charles I are any indication, Philip's becoming King of Spain isn't too far off into the future. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeez; the first person I thought of when I read "Philip" was the Duke of Edinburgh. I actually took a while to consider how he fit in to the Spanish line of succession before I realised you meant Juan Carlos' son! Anyway, I hardly ever see any images or footage of the King of Spain. Is he ill? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He had a benign tumor removed from his lung in 2010, but in these last few months, he looks ashen coloured & has been sporting a mustache & beard (first time in public since ever). Apparently, he's been seen walking with a cane recently. If you check the archives of Unofficial royal news website, you'll may see the differance in appearance from last year to this year. PS: As for Philip; I tend to anglonize names. For example, Baldwin I of Belgium, Margaret II of Denmark, Charles XVI Gustave of Sweden, John Charles I of Spain etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Heraldic emblem?
I didn't want to revert your edit because you look like an experienced editor that has edited this page many times before, but I would like an explanation of why this logo is being used. I have never seen this in my life. It has never been used on any government websites. I have never even heard of it. And I have never seen the government use it as a symbol for the prime minister. So, why are we using it? Thanks, Nations United (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I kind of recall seeing it somewhere else; can't remember off the top of my head just now, though. You might want to ask the user who uploaded the file: User:Fry1989. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Canada
Fry1989 and Miesianiacal-

I have reverted the page back to 14 May, before your editwar began. This is of course the The Wrong Version; perhaps we can leave that aside until a consensus is hammered out. I have also created a new section on the talkpage for you each to make a concise statement about your position on the issue, with a third section for the community to comment.

These editwars grow tiresome. Please, both of you, read what I have written on the talkpage and act accordingly. The only other option here is a report to WP:ANEW, which based on how much each of you has been reverting will only end with blocks for both of you. → ROUX   ₪  19:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input; the more people involved, the more quickly a resolution will likely materialise. However, there's no need to direct edit warring warnings my way; a quick browse of the edit history will reveal I only reverted twice. A discussion has already been started at the relevant talk page, as well. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It takes two to tango, and you're both on the dancefloor. Making the exact same statement to both of you avoids the appearance of favouritism. There wasn't much by way of discussion going on; I read the talkpage before writing anything. A tightly-focused discussion will deal with this problem better. → ROUX   ₪  20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two to tango yes; there's nothing wrong with a little dance, in itself. Sometimes, though, one partner can make an ugly mess of things by repeating the same step over and over, ruining the choreography. But, enough metaphors for now. The discussion seems to have picked up; the other party is, at least, participating. And it's come down to only a matter of sourcing, which should be a problem easily enough resolved. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:EIIR-OoC.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EIIR-OoC.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Gibberish
BTW: they have not allowed that frivolous information to be re-posted to Prince William's page. suggesting it was not pertinent to his actual relationship with his new bride. Why even comment to me {or leave the comment} if you are aware they have removed that information. Reliably sourced does not mean reliably inserted. --Janedoewalks (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC) "Prince William

The material you persist on deleting from Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, is reliably sourced. Given that, plus the absence of any reason for why you're removing it, it's very hard to understand your objection or concern or whatever is motivating you. Can you explain what the problem is? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)"

"Listen I can find many reliably sourced item that have a vague association with Prince William and his bride, but myself and the whole rest of the world KNOW, that that Canadian artist, Patcher, printing out a picture and then painting on it has NOTHING to do with these two young adults getting married. His personal and professional work needs to stay on his page. My husband and I could write a long beautiful story that touches upon, um, let's go ahead and say Shawn Carter and Beyonce Knowles, but would that story, even if everyone who reads it loves and, REALLY belong on either of their Wikipedia pages??? Seriously, if the validity of Wikipedia is ever to be proven, this kind of lame self-promoting, internet name dropping has to stop.--Janedoewalks (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)"

Harvnb links
You reported some broken harvnb links a few months ago. I fixed all the articles you listed. Are there more? Please reply at Template talk:Harvard citation no brackets. CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay in my getting to this.
 * Thanks for making those fixes. I'm sure there are more articles that use the old harvnb format, but I can't think, off the top of my head, which they all are. I guess they'll just have to be dealt with as they're stumbled upon. Was there some trick you used to make the change? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The articles used an unusual method to create an anchor for harvnb. Normally, the anchor is created by using harv in the citation template, which creates the (hidden) anchor . These articles used CITEREF_Last_Year, which worked until harvnb was improved to ignore spaces.


 * I'm guessing that these unusual anchors were all created by a single editor. So I think we're looking for about seven or eight broken articles, certainly no more than twenty. (Unless I'm guessing wrong, of course. There may be a few other editors who used the same method. It would be worthwhile to get a list of all articles that use "CITEREF" somewhere in their wikitext and to check them.) Out of some 15,000 articles that use the harv family of templates, this probably isn't a lot of articles.


 * To answer your question, I just changed the anchor from CITEREF_Last_Year to the more standard and recommended harv and fixed any problems that showed up. CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn
With regards to this, the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of the Militia and Naval Forces of Canada are neither titles nor styles. A title is how you address someone. Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of the Militia and Naval Forces of Canada are offices, like prime minister or president. The Prime Minister is David Cameron = the Governor General is The Duke of Connaught.

Also, I'm reverting your edit not to start an edit war, but because the last time something similar happened and the editor completely ignored me when I posted a message on her page without reverting. - Yk3 talk · contrib 02:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly is a title. You'll note, I'm sure, that the current governor general is addressed as the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada. If you believe I'm wrong, please pursue this at the article's talk page and notify some Wikiprojects, since whatever's decided will have to be applied to the biography articles of all Canadian governors general. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Judging from the example you cited, I guess it isn't wrong to say that it's a form of address. (I still don't think it's a title.) Sometimes I get the feeling people get a little overexcited about the titles & styles section and decide to deluge it with whatever they can find. It certainly isn't the case here. Thanks very much for explaining. - Yk3 talk · contrib 03:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Curious anachronism
Hello Please see Talk:Lieutenant Governor of Quebec. Peter Horn User talk 15:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing your interest in royal tours of Canada...
I've started 2011 Royal tour of Canada, but I'd really welcome any help. Regards, --  Zanimum (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Canada Day
It was pointless trivia a month ago and it's irrelevant now. This is not a significant event and Wikipedia is not the news. "Longstanding". What nonsense.  freshacconci  talk talk  21:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I'm sure you'll note I've begun a discussion on the matter at Talk:Canada Day, to see if a consensus can be found on what to do (or not do). Feel free to participate. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Act of Settlement (1700 or 1701)
I have noticed the edit you recently made. This Act is an Act of the Parliament of England. Neither the fact that that Parliament has been superseded, nor the fact that it has been extended to other jurisdictions, changes what it is. James500 (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I wont comment on its status in the UK. However, the act is no longer "extended" to countries like Canada, Jamaica, and Australia, since they are all independent of the UK. Is the Act of Settlement as a part of the Canadian constitution still an act of the English parliament? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, "extend" and "extent" are technical terms. They do not necessarily refer to extraterriotorial legislation. In the UK we have, for example, legislation that provides that it "extends to England and Wales only".

I think:
 * The Act of Settlement, if it has ever been extended to another country, will continue to extend to that country unless either the Parliament of the United Kingdom or the local legislature has expressly or impliedly repealed it for that country.
 * If the Act does so extend, it will continue be an Act of the Parliament of England, unless either the Parliament of the United Kingdom or the local legislature has passed an Act that provides that it is no longer an Act the Parliament of England in that country.

What I have established so far is that, in the Australian Capital Terriotory, "The Act of Settlement" was, on 11 May 1989, converted, from an Act of the Parliament of England, into an ACT enactment, by section 34(4) of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cwlth), and then renamed "The Act of Settlement 1700" by the Legislation Act 2001. See here: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/db_1788/current/pdf/db_1788.pdf

I am not sure what the position is in Canada. I would need more information than I have at this moment. Is there an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or the Parliament of Canada that expressly provides that the Act of Settlement (1700 or 1701) is no longer an Act of the Parliament of England in Canada but is now an Act of the Parliament of Canada or which has repealed the Act of Settlement for Canada?

CNN & monarchies
Wowsers, did Frederica Whitfield just call Harald V, "the Norwegian President"? CNN can be quite lazy sometimes, with their research. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

James, Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor
Can you tell your edit summary to me? Why James isn't The Viscount Severn and Louise isn't The Lady Louise Windsor?Keivan.f (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * James because he uses the title as the eldest son of an earl, not in his own right; Jame's father is the Viscount Severn; James is called Viscount Severn as a courtesy. It seems, though, I was wrong about Louise; she should be, as the daughter of an earl, the Lady Louise. Info on this is available here. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Crown land
Regarding the addition of Crown land to Elizabeth II, I don't think this is of sufficient importance for the main article as it isn't mentioned in her biographies. I do think it is suitable for the daughter article, which absurdly claims that she owns one sixth of the land surface of the world. DrKiernan (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It initially seemed to me that if the Crown Estate in the UK is worth mention, then so is the equivalent in her other countries. However, I understand that Crown land does not play as direct a role in royal financing as does the Crown Estate in the UK.
 * Crown land, though, has nothing to do with financing the royal family in the United Kingdom. Any revenues from Crown land go into the state coffers from where budgeted amounts are drawn to fund the viceregal offices/households and, via other departments, members of the Royal Family and their entourages when they are acting on behalf of the country/province/state to which the Crown land belongs.
 * The claim at Finances of the British Royal Family does seem rather ludicrous. Not only is Crown land not the personal property of Elizabeth II, the vast majority of it has, as I just mentioned, nothing to do with financing the Royal Family in Briatin. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)