User talk:Piratesswoop/Archive 3

The "Prince/ss X of Wales" Issue
Just thought I'd let you know that there's a discussion about the above at the WikiProject, and I'm inviting all of the members to join in DBD 13:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Titanic-bio-stub
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha?  00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Belgian princes
I must really protest maintaining these article on non-notable, minor and cadet princes of royal families, such as the Belgian princes who are very, very young and who have done nothing of note. To be taken seriously I think these articles really should exist as redirects and as information on their parents' pages. When something notable happens or they have accomplishments other than being born than they might appropriately have articles. Until then, they are simply babies, infants and children with fancy names, you know? Charles 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Being the child of a crown prince is just about as notable as being any lineal male-line descendant of a sovereign if there are no other accomplishments or notable items. Being in a notable class does not make one automatically notable. See also WP:INTERESTING. I find all princes and princesses to be rather interesting (some would argue that I don't but they obviously do not know me) but that doesn't mean that they are article-worthy. Ariane, Isabella and Sverre Magnus should probably all be redirected as well but I simply don't log on to Wikipedia with an agenda of just redirecting. It would be nice though if it was understood why there shouldn't be articles on these people. I am not saying never, just not now, to having articles on these princes and princesses. Charles 01:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If I may chime in. Anyone in the top-10 list of a next-in-line-for-the-crown of a major country is automatically notable.  If the Crown Prince had 20 kids, they might not all be notable but the first few would be by virtue of their place in line.  Having said that:  Just because you are notable doesn't make you encyclopedic. Where a printed encyclopedia would use a stub and say "Prince Dogbert:  2nd son of North Elbonian Prince Dilbert and Princess Alice, b. January 1, 2003.  See also: Prince Dilbert of North Elbonia, Wikipedia can use a redirect rather than a stub until there is enough meat to warrant a split.  I vote for leaving existing articles alone and creating pre-emptive redirects for other similarly-notable but non-encyclopedic people.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you going to discuss it or are you just going to revert without saying anything? Further discussion must ensue. Charles 02:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne
Can you throw a reference in for the new new Soltmann/Xenia baby, even if it's just in an HTML comment? I couldn't find her in a net search. IMHO everyone who isn't in one of the major references should be formally footnoted or have the reference informally noted in the logs or html comments. A formal footnote is best but it can get cluttered over time. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  13:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Princess Eléonore of Belgium
An editor has nominated Princess Eléonore of Belgium, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gabriel of Belgium.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gabriel of Belgium.jpg, has been listed at Images and media 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? High on a tree (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC) High on a tree (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Princess Eléonore of Belgium
Thanks for adding the correct Belgian Pricess-related category. I should've checked for a more appropriate category instead of just deleting the inappropriate one. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gabriel of Belgium.jpg
What is the copyright status of Image:Gabriel of Belgium.jpg? You added both the PD-release and Non-free fair use in tags. Both can't be correct. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: ok for reproduction. Sadly, that's not "PD" and it's not good enough for Wikipedia's real lawyers.  A picture has to be provably public domain, provably freely licensed, provably fair use, or removed.  The person who wants to delete it claims it's not fair use and I'm inclined to agree.   I hope it can be proven PD or proven freely licensed.  Anyhow, please swing over to the deletion discussion and add your input.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Eugeneroe.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Eugeneroe.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Tom (talk - email) 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Queen Wilhelmina
Hi Kate, Can you answer my question here? Thanks, Happy138 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Irakli Bagration
Hi. Irakli had actually renounced his rights long before his father died, but, as far as I know, the things became completely clear only upon his death. I was not able to find any credible info about the circumstances of Irakli's renouncement, however. Best regards, --KoberTalk 14:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Patronyms
The Russian patronyms were discussed and another of the pages is under a vote. I suggest you reverse your moves and wait for the votes to finalize or I will have to have an admin intervene and undo the moves, which would be a waste of everyone's time because they should not have been done in the first place. Charles 14:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have undone the moves. Charles 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kate, thank you for the message. The patronyms should be presented in as English a form as possible and not simply as a pure Russian transliterations because those tend to have many different spellings. That being said, the most English forms tend to be those that appear Latinate in form and spelling. Generally this means C over K, ae over aie/aye/etc, eo over yo et cetera. Of course, there seem to be enough exceptions that patterns are quicky lost. Petro-, Pavlo-, Vladimiro-, Alexandro-, Mikhailo- (Michaelo- seems to be very rarely used), Constantino- and Feodoro- (meaning Alix of Hesse should be moved, she's at Fyodorovna) are forms which are most in use now that I also wholly endorse.

The problematic forms involve Cyrillo-/Kirillo- and Nicholae-/Nikolae-. The problem with the form derived from Cyril is pronunciation. 'C' in Cyril sounds like "s" and I imagine that the patronym should be pronounced with a hard "k". This is obviously ambiguous to the reader upon sight if they see Cyrillovich or Cyrillovna, although they do certainly look better to me. Vladimir should probably be called "Vladimir Kirillovich" although I like the current spelling better. However, that's purely my personal opinion only so it should probably be discounted. The problem, however, does not exist with Nicholaevich or Nicholaevna. The Nikolae- form is currently being used because it was a compromise at the time to avoid lengthy discussion. That being said, I definitely prefer the form with the "ch" because I think it has greater familiarity to English eyes and also because it doesn't change the pronunciation, which is the most important thing. John Kenney is an advocate of the "k" form and I deferred to his opinion on the matter although I make it no secret that I think "ch" is better. Charles 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, NYT has used "Cyrllovich" for Vladimir. Charles 00:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Princess Nadia Petrovna of Russia and Helen of Serbia
Would you be willing to take a look at these articles and offer an opinion on the talk pages about the ongoing debates? I think more opinions are probably needed to arrive at an agreement on the usage of names. It's an argument similar to the one at Prince Ioann Konstantinovich of Russia. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks (Russian princes)
I think we should do with the Princes and Princesses of the Blood what we did with the grand dukes and grand duchesses, have asterisks for those who claim the princely style but would otherwise be morganauts OR who have disputed status. There *are* (or "would be") Serene Highnesses who are Princes of the Blood Imperial of Russia, those being the male-line great-great-grandchildren of an emperor (reigning or titular). I don't know if we've had any of those yet though. However, the senior male agnate issued from any great-grandson was entitled to "Highness", which passed by primogeniture within that respective line. If there is any question about their status but they do claim to be "of Russia" rather than anything else, let's use the asterisks. Charles 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikidates
Looking at this edit, I see you have forced American Dating format (m-d-y) on an article that deals with a British subject, where International Dating format (d-m-y) is preferred, as per WP:DATE. Be aware that these templates output AD as a default. Worse, you have forced month first by using the "mf=y" flag. Please read up on how dates and templates work - you should not put commas into wikidates, for instance, as the software will insert one automatically if outputting in AD. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Ohio Newsletter
This newsletter is delivered by bot to all project members of WikiProject Ohio. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter in the future, please note this at the unsubscribe page. Thank you, §tepshep Delivered by ShepBot (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

George Frederick, Prince of Prussia quotes
Vanity Fair issue no. 517, September 2003, page 426. I don't know how to integrate it properly as a reference though. Charles 03:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Move of Robert Dziekański taser incident
This note is in regards to your move of Robert Dziekański taser incident. There's a brief discussion of the capitalization at Talk:Robert Dziekański taser incident – please add any comments there. Flatscan (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. (Also Auguste van Pels.) Neither article cites any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (which would establish notability per WP:NOTE), nor do the articles even assert any notability other than as people associated with Anne Frank -- which already has its own article. HrafnTalkStalk 14:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve Abbott is a witt alum, please stop vandalizing that page
Per here http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0007921/bio, Steve Abbott is a Witt Alum. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.35.205 (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)