User talk:Prsgoddess187/Archive 2

Maud of Wales
The article was once at Maud, Queen of Norway and I moved it to Maud of Wales to be in line with other royal consorts. But then someone moved it to Maud of the UK, and it can now only be moved back by an admin. I would support a move back to Maud of Wales, other daughters of Princes of Wales who married Kings are styled like this, eg Caroline Matilda of Wales. Astrotrain 13:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * hi Prsgoddess187, I am only now able to get to your message, sorry for the delay. difficult case for me to tell, aren't british royal princesses normally named "(Name) of the United Kingdom"? The only point of reference I have found is "Diana, Princess of Wales". So shouldn't this case be "Maud, Princess of Wales"? "Maud of Wales" to me would imply that she was ruler of Wales, such as Anne of Great Britain or Victoria of the United Kingdom? with kind regards Gryffindor  16:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes I see, but was she then "Princess Maud of Wales" in that case? Gryffindor  16:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If her title before marriage was that of Wales, and I believe you, then I will support the renaming. However I have seen a plethora of other articles with the title, such as Princess Viktoria Luise of Prussia, Princess Margarete of Prussia, Princess Viktoria of Prussia, Princess Katherine of Greece and Denmark, Princess Patricia of Connaught, Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, and the sisters of Princess Maud Princess Victoria Alexandra of the United Kingdom and Princess Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife. The article itself states that her born name was Princess Maud of Wales. Quite confusing, what is going on here when is the title put in and when not? IMO renaming it to Princess Maud of Wales is probably the best bet, don't you agree? Gryffindor  17:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * *checking.....* you are right! Queen consorts go without titles on Wikipedia (strange I find, but that's another topic). Ok, gets my support, good job on convincing me :-) Gryffindor  17:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. glad to be of help, let me know if you need anything else in future. with kind regards Gryffindor  17:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Liechtenstein changes
I've expanded the Princely Family of Liechtenstein page with a lot of basic biographical info, and I plan to remove that type of info from most of the individual pages and point them at the family page. A lot of the minor members' articles will just become redirects to the family page (as most of them currently have no content beyond what's now on on the family page) Colonies Chris 23:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You might want to keep an eye on Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. User:DreamGuy is annoyed that there is some coverage of the Jack the Ripper allegations against the Prince in two articles. He has spent months demanding that they be merged, and got no support, because Royalty and urban legends isn't about the Jack the Ripper case but about rumours about royalty and so covers a series of myths from that angle in a specific narrative. He now is annoyed that as that attempt to merge the article (or bits of it) into his own beloved article on Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories has flopped consistently for months and so sneaks into the Albert Victor article, dumps links that aren't to his article, and posts abuse on the edit summary while doing so. I've given up even replying to him and his antics, and just revert. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Princess Augusta Charlotte of Wales
See my response at the talk page for the naming. Cheers Astrotrain 20:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey,

A user just changed the opening of Diana, Princess of Wales to refer to her as Diana Spencer. To be honest I have been thinking that that needs to be done for a long time. It is crazy that Diana, as a (former) royal consort, is still at her death name when others who died subsequently have long since reverted to the standard royal biographical format of maiden name. It isn't as if we can even use the most common name rule to justify it given that far more people would use the non-existent Princess Diana than D,P o W. In addition, D, P o W lapsed as a style on her death. I'd be interested to hear your views before formally proposing it. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 20:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette
hey there Prsgoddess187,

you pointed out to me once about the maiden names of queen consorts. Maybe you could take a look here and give some input if you wish..? thanks alot. Gryffindor 14:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Royal Family of Yugoslavia/abolished monarchies
Hi,

I was wondering if you could help under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29 re: status of ex-Royal family of Yugoslavia. Please can you give your view (whatever it is), it would help a great deal!

An Esperanzial note
As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: EA-welcome (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Cel e stianpower háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

What has been going on is simple. Where a term has an internationally understood meaning it obviously has an entitlement to have the page of that name, with other localised meanings related to a disambigulation page, eg the French capital at Paris, the Italian capital at Rome, etc. In the case of The Nation there is no one international meaning. Many states have or have had national publications of that name, some of them very famous. No one publication is known widely outside its own region; in fact many are largely unknown outside their own country. The Nation was created as a disambigulation page to deal with all publications. However some US users unilaterally changed that to make the main page devoted to their local publication and shunted all the other publications to another disambigulation page. Then links were made to their publication and they even claimed that their publication as the biggest, even though it is largely unknown outside the US and even relatively unknown in much of the US, was of course entitled to own the main page and more important than the the newspaper of the same name in Pakistan, the paper of the same name in Thailand, the historic UK publication of the same name, the famous nineteenth century Irish newspaper of that name, and large numbers of other publications of that name, all of whom are being added one by one by international users.

All I did was return The Nation to being a link to the disamb page. I sought to move some of the links to that page from US articles directly to the US page. However that is unacceptable to some US users who insist that their original unilateral move must be the way the page is, and their publication is more important and the meaning of the name more people on the planet think of than any other. Try telling that to the tens of millions internationally who think of other publications, or the billions (inclusions hundreds of millions in the US) who have never heard of the US publication. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A vote on the issue is taking place at Talk:The Nation. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,

--Cel es tianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Your welcome & your signature
Your welcome Prsgoddess187. On another topic, I like you're new signature but I found a slight error on it. You're talk page on you're signature links to Ss187 rather than User talk:Prsgoddess187. Try the link yourself and you'll see it.

I think you're signature under preferances currently looks like:

 Prsgodd e ss187 

Try changing your signature too...

 Prsgodd e ss187 

If I can make a suggestion, go through preferances and try out your signature before posting it, so others don't see a possible mess-up like this one. S W D 3 1 6 talk to me 01:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Prsgoddess, that means a lot. M o e  ε  00:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do have a question I wanted to ask someone so I'll ask you! How does my user page look? And does anything need improving? M o e   ε  01:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is rather red isn't it? Hmm.. I could fix that. About your user page, ask Phaedriel if she could fix your user page. She's great with them! M o e   ε  01:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, You might want to keep an eye on Mary of Teck, Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall etc. Some user is going around replacing UK dating with US dating, contrary to WP rules on using UK dating on UK articles and US dating on US articles. Every time they are told to stop they simply change IP and start all over again. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 01:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to cut in on your new conversation but does the new green heading look better than the red one? M o e   ε  01:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, I changed it to the green one already. Well, whenever your computer see's the green version tell me so I know. Your computer just might be a little slow. M o e   ε  01:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks for the input. ;-) M o e   ε  02:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Prsgoddess187, thank you for supporting me in the Esperanza council election. I like your user page especially the flag and it's caption. Thanks again.-- Dakota ~   °  06:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Luise of Tuscany
hi Annamarie, I have a question. Charles imo correctly pointed out that Luise of Tuscany was never queen of Saxony, she got divorced a year before her husband ascended the throne. Therefore shouldn't this article be renamed? Something like "Princess Luise of Tuscany", or "Archduchess Luise, Princess of Tuscany", something like that? don't know what exactly her title was. looking forward, thanks.... Gryffindor 17:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Annamarie, posted the move request, looking forward to your input. Gryffindor  16:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and vote of support, I think that should take care of the issue. I was looking at this one as well, Eugene of Savoy. Now correct me if I am wrong, but normally the format "Name of territory" is only used for monarchs, right? This gentleman was however only a minor prince from a minor sideline on top of that (Savoy-Carignan). I looked into the Naming conventions (names and titles) and shouldn't he be "Prince Eugene of Savoy" in that case, since he was not a ruler but only a non-royal member of the Savoy? The problem is also with the naming of the Carignano line. One of his ancestors is currently listed as Thomas Francis, Prince of Carignano. However, I have seen the version "Thomas François de Carignan, Prince of Savoy" in a museum with his portrait. To compound this story, on the net I find the version "Thomas François de Savoie, prince de Carignan". So what is it? Does the Carignan come first, or the Savoy? or is it hyphenated? Gryffindor  01:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza elections
Before I left, I wanted to thank you for your support in the Esperanza elections and for your comment on my user page. M o e  ε  04:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Elections
Hey Prsgoddess187! I wish to say thanks for your vote at the Esperanza elections.

I've made my way into the Advisory Committee, so if you ever need any help or have any queries about the stuff we do, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks again, KnowledgeOfSelf 09:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. Thanks. - Bobet 10:39, 1 March 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 20:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

question
hi Prsgoddess187, how are you? did you get my last message about Prince Eugene of Savoy? you can see it if you scroll up, maybe you missed it? Well I would like to hear from you what you think. Also I stumbled across this article, Stéphanie of Belgium. Again similar case to Luise of Tuscany IMO, because the lady was married to Crown Prince Rudolph, who shot himself though. Therefore, she never became empress-consort of Austria. hope to hear from you, thanks... Gryffindor 11:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Prsgoddess187, I just posted it. about the Eugene of Savoy, the problem is that he is universally known as Prince of Savoy (which he was), the one of Carignano was just the sideline. I think we need to go with most common name in that case.. hm, what do you think? about Thomas, I'm really confused as well. You might also want to take a look here Talk:Cecylia Renata. thanks for your help! Gryffindor  12:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

question on nobility consorts
hi Prsgoddess187, I am having problems with User:Cfvh moving articles of consorts such as Princess Alice of the United Kingdom to Alice of the United Kingdom without prior discussion. Similar thing happened to Princess Viktoria Luise of Prussia, which I reverted. IMO since the husbands of these ladies were not sovereign anymore, the rule on queen-consorts does not apply. The German monarchies gave up their sovereignty in the strict sense to the German Empire in 1871. The rule on consorts IMO applies only to monarchies that were completely sovereign and independent, and not if they were a subgroup (in German: Bundesfürsten) as they became part of the higher nobility (Hochadel). The only sovereign monarchy after 1871 was in that case the Hohenzollern of the German Empire. User:Cfvh has been moving these articles without prior discussion, even though I already pointed out to him he should discuss these things first.... maybe I'm totally wrong, but I'm quite sure that the rule does not apply to nobility. looking forward to your opinion, thanks. Gryffindor 12:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. I am reading the article on Hessen-Darmstadt (redirects to it) and it says "In 1871, it became a constituent state of the German Empire." So that's not sovereign anymore, anything before that until 1806 maybe, but not after the founding of the German Empire, all state monarchies lost their sovereignty. Here is also a list of all the states Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire. IMO they only had sovereignty between the end of the Holy Roman Empire from 1806 until the foundation of the Second Reich in 1871. The only monarchies that retained their sovereignty were Austria-Hungary, Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein, all others were incorporated and became mere states of the German Empire. Gryffindor  14:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Psrgoddess187, I accidentally had Gryffindor's page on my watchlist after leaving him a note before (it is set to automatic for me). I saw the noble consorts comment and thought I'd post. Hesse and by Rhine was a sovereign grand duchy, much like Prussia and Bavaria were still kingdoms. They weren't merely nobility. The German Empire was like the boardroom at a company, with the Emperor as the chairman. It's kind of like the commonwealth in a sense. Charles 16:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Luxembourg is independent. Is it a kingdom? The title which the ruler uses is inconsequential. Hesse and by Rhine was as sovereign as Canada is in the Commonwealth, and there is no argument there. Charles 18:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Prsgoddess187, well since Charles has me apparently on his watchlist, he can read this as well. Bavaria was not a kingdom until the fall of the Holy Roman Empire. De jure they were all under the suzerainty of the Holy Roman Empire. Otherwise we would have to start counting all the thousand little dukedoms and princely houses as sovereign as well. Would anyone argue that tiny Isenburg-Wied was "sovereign" as well just like Prussia? Where would it end and where does it start? All German princes owed their allegiance to the emperor, therefore that cannot be counted as completely sovereign in that case. Legally speaking only between the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 until the Second Reich in 1871 were they truly independent in every sense. I checked on "Hesse and by Rhine", which redirects to Hesse-Darmstadt. Hesse and by Rhine was established in 1816 by the Congress of Vienna, and became a state of Germany in 1871, so it lost its independence. Maybe we should post this discussion somewhere else instead of pumping your talk page full, sorry... :-) Gryffindor  17:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion at Talk:Hesse-Darmstadt. I hope that you will join in. Thanks! Charles 17:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Royal Consorts of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England
Hi, I'm working on a list of Royal Consorts of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England, I was thinking that since you are into royalty ) you might like to get involved. The list is lacking in a few pictures, you might be able to help there, andI was wondering if you could help with add scottish consorts to the list aswell... thanks Sotakeit 13:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you realise any comments on your proposal shouldn't be taken as a personal criticism or affront. Deb 16:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

your input appreciated
hi Prsgoddess187, how are you? I could use some input on this Talk:Marie Josepha, your help as usual is greatly appreciated, thank you. with kind regards Gryffindor  09:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Victoria, Princess Royal
Hi there, Prsgoddess. Would you care to take a look at Talk:Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick and contribute a vote? Many thanks. Charles 17:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Anne Marie of Greece
Hi Psrgoddess, could you please contribute a vote at Talk:Anne-Marie of Greece? Thanks. Charles 19:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

questions
hi Prsgoddess187, sorry to bother you again, but your input is appreciated again on this one Talk:Maria Josefa of Saxony as well as Talk:Marie-Anne of Austria and Talk:Archduke Albert of Austria (1817-1895)? These are going to be the last cases for now, thank you for your time. Gryffindor 19:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Prsgoddess187, just dropping by to say thank you for helping out in the votes, I hope it will bring a little bit more order and structure in the sometimes chaotic naming schemes :-) please let me know if you ever need something as well, cheers. Gryffindor  14:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Prsgoddess187, I'm fine. My real-life problem is fine, although I don't like the outcome :-( Things are now looking up though :-) Talk to you later! M o e  ε  01:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)