User talk:Piratesswoop/Archive 1

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! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Royals etc
Please kindly consider whether a person has been prominent enough to deserve an own article here. After all, this is encyclopedia, and biographies should fulfill the requirement that person is "noteworthy" enough, i.e encyclopedic. If a person has been not prominent in their own right, i.e accomplishments and being known, an own article should not be created. Typical problems are children or relatives of prominent persons, as it is too easy to make a link and then an article from the list of children in an article. Royals are notorious to produce also unencyclopedic articles. Such soon will find themselves as targets of Vote for Deletion.

Please think always: is the person mentioned only because of their position in a genealogy? Has the person anything more prominent in the story of life than only everyday events, such as work, coupling, children? It would be useful to consider whether the information intended to a separate article could be written in the article of the more prominent relative who has deserved the own article. Most royals could be handled in this way. Or in an article narrating about a family. 217.140.193.123 06:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Warning against cut-and-paste moves
Morhange, you have been discovered having moved articles by cut-and-paste. Cut-and-paste moves are against Wikipedia policies and GDFL terms, and can be regarded as vandalism. You must stop making cut-and-paste moves. 217.140.193.123 16:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Princess Margaret(e) of Prussia
You blanked this article ant put it up for speedy delete. This is a bad move, please either discuss with the other editors where the article should go, or merge the information and put a redirect. Discussion is generally good, because if you can get a consensus, people aren't likely to just change back what you've done. Alternatively you could list the article on Articles for deletion, but it is likley to have the same result. Rich Farmbrough 23:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. Moves are preferable to merges if the new page has no history to speak of. HAving looked at the history, I suggest you probably want to move the article and re-add your improvements. I've left a note on User talk:Francis Schonken asking for input. Rich Farmbrough 23:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Alexius Petrovich
Hi there, Morhange! Where on earth did you get the info that Alexius Petrovich was a grand duke? He was referred to as His Imperial Highness or tsarevich, but never a grand duke. Please, consider moving the page back to where it was. KNewman 11:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Princess Nathalie of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg
Hi, if an article is very short, it is not a criteria for speedy deletion or deletion at all! It is a criteria for expansion. If you still wish to delete it, please add afd tag and follow the instructions. Renata3 18:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, I properly listed it on your behalf here: Articles for deletion/Princess Nathalie of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg. Renata3 06:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Page moves and double redirects
Hi.

When you move a page, it's important to edit any redirects leading to the old page so that they now lead to your new page. This is because the old page has now become a redirect to your new page, so any redirects leading to the old page are now redirects to a redirect, and the Wiki software doesn't follow double-redirects, making it harder for users following these old links to get to your new page. You can find any such double-redirects by clicking on "What links here" in the toolbox on the lefthand column of the screen. Thanks! Binabik80 03:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Userbox Senioritis
Thanks for being the first person outside of my school for adding my new userbox, senioritis. You have probably noticed that there's some strange spacing under it. I have no idea what's doing that in the code and I'm working for fix it ASAP. Of course this is difficult to remain motivated, since I suffer, as you do, from senioritis. If you see the coding error, please feel free to fix it. Thanks for hanging in there. Chad 19:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems that I've fixed it. Chad 21:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Psst
I'm trying to build support for this nomination in its last few days. Please check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 20:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
What do you think you are doing moving members of this ducal family from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was a personal union of two duchies, Saxe-Coburg and Saxe-Gotha, hence Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. STOP moving these articles. They now all have to go up for request moves. Charles 16:25, 30 April 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 11:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

List of people with epilepsy
Thanks for adding Prince Erik, Duke of Västmanland. I would really like to add a source for the facts concerning his epilepsy. Do you have a book or reputable internet site, etc that contains the info? Colin°Talk 16:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is now a Featured List Candidate and I'd appreciate your views (mentioning that you've added a name to the list, just to be safe). Cheers, Colin°Talk 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Prince Michael of Kent's son
I agree with your last edit there. Should you need my support for any dispute that may arise from this topic, please do not hesitate to contact me. Brian W 23:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Princess Lenore of yada yada
Actually the whole lot of them should get redirects... and this applies to all children of royalty or celebrities that have done little more than be born and wet themselves. None of them meet WP:BIO. That said, I don't have nearly enough interest in the quaint trappings of royalty to go around fixing them all.--Isotope23 17:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Living Titanic survivors
I just posted a question for you on the Talkpage of this article. I'd be interested in your input if you have time. Happy Editing :) Doc Tropics 21:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq and the War on Terrorism
WOT is up for vote now, and I would appreciate your input on the issue. Rangeley 20:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 04:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

British Royalty
D B  D  22:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC) UTC)

Archduchess Walburga
Hi,

I just saw this article in recent changes and saw you moved it from "Archduchess Walburga of Austria" to its current title "Archduchess Walburga of Austria-Hungary". Now I don't know about Austrian laws, but in Hungary all noble titles were abolished in 1945 (well before she was born), so here she cannot be anything but simply Walburga Habsburg, furthermore even if she had been born before 1945, she couldn't have been an archduchess of Hungary since this is an imperial title and Hungary was a kingdom, not an empire. (The correct title would have been been Archduchess of Austria and Princess of Hungary.) I suggest we move this back to the original title, if noble titles are really needed for these non-ruling royals. regards, – Alensha    talk  22:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Archduke Georg
Hi Morhange, "Archduke Paul" is actually called Archduke Georg. It is similar to Archduke Otto, who was baptized as Franz Joseph Otto Robert Maria Anton Karl Max Heinrich Sixtus Xaver Felix Renatus Ludwig Gaetan Pius Ignatius - although Franz Joseph appears first he is not referred to as Archduke Franz Joseph but Otto. Gugganij 14:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for changing it. Gugganij 21:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

BRoy Style Guide
I've just created a proposal for our Style Guide - HERE - please do discuss it on the talk page // D  B  D  12:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM
Hi Morhange: please follow the directions at Requested moves and relist your page at Requested moves. Thanks. — Mets 501 (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi Morhange. I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia, and even a short summary is better than no summary. Thanks. Picaroon9288 01:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Charlotte, Countess or Countess Charlotte
Hi, I'd be interested to know why you believe "Countess Charlotte of Rosenborg" is more correct than "Charlotte, Countess of Rosenborg"? http://www.thepeerage.com/p10983.htm#i109827 and http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal19376 both seem to support "Charlotte, Countess" Thanks. Jcuk 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, have changed the wording somewhat so the articles dont mention # in line to the throne. 88.107.210.0 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Reverts
Please revert vandalism, do not just delete. This causes all their edits (including deletions) to be reverted. To do this, you go into the history, click the version you want to revert to, click edit page, ignore the warning in the red box, type an edit summary describing your reversion (like "rv vandalism"), and click save. Thanks, Cbrown1023 20:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. The page I am referring to is Talk:The Outsiders (film). Cbrown1023 20:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte
Hello! See Bonaparte's talk page, thanks. Lapaz 17:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

pedigrees
You may wish to check the several genealogical trees mentioned at Articles for deletion/Greek pedigree of Empress Sisi. Maed 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg
Dear Morhange,

The two of us seem to be the most active editors of the page Line of succession to the British Throne. I disagree with one of your recent edits: changing the "would be" number of Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg. In my opinion his "would be" number should be exactly the same as that for his uncle King Albert of Belgium. We are only saying what the number would be if this individual were not Catholic (or married to a Catholic). If we were calculating what the number would be if there was not a "no Catholics allowed" clause in the Act of Settlement, then the number would be totally different, since we would have to count everybody who is excluded higher. Your calculation assumes not only that Henri were not Catholic, but also his Belgian relatives. Noel S McFerran 22:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

BRoy titles templates poll
Hi, ! I've just started a poll about Category:British royal titles templates, and would really value your input - please do have your say! Cheers, – DBD 13:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt
Hello Morhange;

Would you mind taking a look at the edit history of this page, specifically the edits by Bnguyen? He is pushing that Frédéric is a prince, which he is not. Charles 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking and RMS Titanic
I also found out about this policy by luck and I think it's a cool one. Nice work with the aritcle. We saved the aricle from deletion but now steps must be done in order to make it a good article. I have some suggestions: 1. Make the table sortable, 2. Instead of using italics put a column "Saved" with a Y or N, 3. divide the Hometown in two columns Hometown and Homecountry for better sorting. Moreover, can you explain me what is this "m" next to same ages? I don't get it. Keep the good work! -- Magioladitis 08:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe put "m" in the begging instead at the end. At least this prevent the mixing. 09:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Eloise Hughes Smith
Hi. I think you may be interested to state your own opinion about Eloise Hughes Smith article which is nominated for deletion. -- Magioladitis 11:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wittenberg University
I'm delighted that you can confirm this paragraph at Wittenberg University. Could you locate a published source for it? It is one of Wikipedia's core policies that all material must be verifiable. It may seem pedantic, but your first-hand confirmation is insufficient. — mholland (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Danish Royal Family
Regarding your comparison to the Windsors, the House of Windsor is not a Germanic house while the House of Schleswig-Holstein/Oldenburg in its entirety is. As such, it can only be populated by agnates. One can belong to more than one house... For instance, Windsor and Glücksburg since the Queen of the UK is arguably the head of the House of Windsor, but also because her children are Glücksburg agnates. Such is not true in Denmark since the Queen of Denmark is not head of any branch of the House of Oldenburg but merely a member of it. Because of this, yes, the Queen of the UK's children belong to the House of Windsor, as cadets of the House of Oldenburg. The Queen of Denmark's issue, however, are neither cadets of the House of Oldenburg nor members of it. Charles 04:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Titanic passengers
Thanks Morhange. I will remember to do that for sure. Just thought I should let you know that I've entered the names of all the passengers (in all 3 classes) whose surnames start with "A" and "B" (just to clear up any confusion you might have!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.88.49 (talk) 17:45, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello, I have been reading your very nice contributions. I would like to extend you an invitation to join us at WP:TIMETRACE. What we help with is: You can read why this is important and more information at WP:TIMETRACE. You don't need to dedicate special time to this, you may for example, while editing diverse articles, check if they have sources in their history or chronology (or when they mention any important date. If they don't, you can either fix it if you have that information, or you can place inline Timefact calls where those citations to sources are missing, this will display . There are also other resources and templates you can use, just visit us to know more. We will be very glad if we can count with your help. Regards  Dao  ken  08:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where dates or periods are mentioned that are important to the article's subject, we see that those are clear, accurate and have citations to reliable sources
 * When an article's subject should have its orgins and development described, we see that the article has a history section and that this is accurate and has reliable sources.

Marina Ogilvy
I have just noticed that Marina Ogilvy's article has been deleted. This is disgraceful, she is definatley notable due to press attention and being the daughter of a Princess. I am amazed that people were so ignorant in the original deletion. Would you be able to help me recreate the article? Articles on her children aren't needed, but we could have redirects.--UpDown 09:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding notable positions
A position may be notable, but not the person holding it. The entry for Prince Alexander of Hohenzollern is mainly genealogical trivia and the true point of note is his place in succession to the Romanian throne, and nothing more. Because of that, his article should remain redirected to his father's page as Alexander's name already appears on the list of succession for two thrones. Those are the only two notable things about him and they already have articles. Since they are not unique and shared by multiple people, it renders him individually non-notable. If the other side were the case, we would have over 1000 articles for people in line of succession to the British throne. I hope you understand this. Charles 03:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Morhange, I do not appreciate the sniping remark you made when discussing this matter (that is, "only" second in line). The fact of the matter is Alexander is not individually notable! Any notability he might have is entirely derived from his membership in the Princely House of Hohenzollern and extended Romanian Royal Family. Those groups of individuals are collectively notable, but not always individually so. Second in line or not, Alexander has no notable achievements or anything else of encyclopedic value outside of what exists at Line of succession to the Romanian throne and possibly his father's article. As for the Archduke Ferdinand Zvonimir? Yes, his article should be deleted as well. Nothing noteworthy that is outside of his father's article and Line of succession to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Charles 05:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Albert
More text doesn't mean it's worth keeping. Maybe the article for the House of Windsor, if there's a genealogy, but that's about it. Female line or not, he only has an article because of a genealogical position. The article says nothing of his person that would warrant an article. A mention at British prince and House of Windsor maybe, but that's it. MC and A should go as well. Charles 01:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Listing of AFDs
Hey Morhange. Since you've also nominated other pages for deletion on the AFD page, I'd suggest remove the other 3 separate ones, as they're already mentioned. Best, Rt . 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Question on Viscount Severn
Well look at his sister page she is styled Lady. Why is that page like that?Holtville (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the different in Lord and The Right Honourable for a Viscount? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holtville (talk • contribs) 03:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Holtville has moved the page incorrectly. As an elder son, Viscount Severn gets a courtesy title not "Lord" before his first name. That goes only to younger sons of marquess and dukes. Youngers sons of earls are "The Honourable". I have requested the page be moved back by an administrator. Courtesy peers are also not "The Right Honourable", only actual peers. --UpDown (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wessex Children
Dear Ma'am, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, DBD 16:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, the embarrassment — noted for the future, tres sorry indeed! DBD 12:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal WikiProject and template standardization
Hi Kate, I would your input on two discussions I have initiated at WikiProject Biography/Royalty, one on template standardization and one on name of the WikiProject and redirects to it. Thanks in advance! Charles 04:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

AfDs
When listing AfDs, you don't have to put "Delete as nominator (1, 2, 3, 4). Obviously, you can if you want, but it is just redundant and doesn't make a difference to the closing user (it is just inferred because you were the one that put it up for AfD).   jj137  ♠ 00:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos of Danish princess and princes
Concerning the photographs of the Danish princess and princes, your reasoning should be added to the fair use rationales. I disagree with the statement that "difficult to find free photographs" would be a good reason to allow non-free images. If you allow it here, you should allow it for all living people on Wikipedia. See also Non-free content. I will notify you if I decide to (re)nominate the photographs for deletion. – Ilse@ 17:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Templates
Actually working on it right now, glad you like it :-) Charles 04:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lo, chums! Are we thinking that "British princesses" suffices without "of the blood royal"? DBD 12:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Randy
Is he at the Wizards or the Magic? Happy138 (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See here. Happy138 (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hohenzollern cadet line
In the edit summary, you confessed not knowing. You can find information on the very talk page of the very article. I will revert your reversion, regarding it ill-informed. Henq (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Romanian "Royal Family Council"
Hiya Kate — I've read through the English translation of King Michael's document — do you think we should mention, somewhere, the creation and composition of this new Royal Family Council? DBD 12:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)