Misplaced Pages

• Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the first-ever admin with no userpage (as evidenced by the red link in his signature)! Oh well, you totally deserved adminship, so congratulations! Nice to know that RFA still gets some things right! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Congrats from me too - If you have any trouble working out how to operate the devandalationizer or speedicomatic on your administrinator 5000 just drop me a note :) Grutness...wha? 06:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations Gryffindor, good luck --Ugur Basak 08:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations on becoming an admin! Use your mop, well! --Andy123(talk) 12:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)]

Well done from me too, sorry to have missed your RfA. Good luck. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

*bow* thank you everyone, that's really sweet of you.... :-)) I won't dissapoint you Gryffindor 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Thank You

In regards to assistance, just cheer me up every now and then, and that'll be more than enough. You deserved my vote, good luck in the future. Karmafist 19:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming a Wiki-Nerd (Level 2 Certified) - Green Giant 21:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your vote of confidence in my recent request for bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I greatly appreciate your support and hope I will continue to have your respect. Also, congrats on your adminship! Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Glad to hear you've got the mop and bucket! I was actually commenting on the poor userboxes being so squishy, but it looks like someone fixed that for you this morning. :) If I can ever be of any help, feel free to drop me a line. .:.Jareth.:. 12:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Glock

Hi Gryffindor, the table on the Glock#Table of Glock pistols looks fine to me; the {{prettytable}} has been substituted, so I think it's fine. But you can remove the bgcolor=#ddeeff from the table if you don't want any background color. Hope this helps. If you need any more info, don't hesitate to contact me! Thanks for wishing me good luck in my exams! Kilo-Lima| 12:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

A special message deserves a separate reply: I was quite happy to support your RfA, and I know you'll be doing fine work. An extra thanks for the barnstar and a special request on that behalf: would you be so kind and move it to my appropriate subpage (Awards and Goodies); I'm loath to do so myself, as that could be misconstrued). Happy editing and have a nice wiki life. Lectonar 13:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It really isn't modesty, but there have been 2 or 3 rather unhappy incidents (if you will look at the AN/i and AN pages in the future, you'll see... and I'm on my way of archiving my talkpage, so go ahead. Lectonar 14:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Beer cats & kittens

It has been suggested by User:BrianSmithson and supported by User:Syrthiss that the Beer and brewery categories should be renamed. This proposal has been supported and expanded by myself. The notion is that the regional categories should follow the format of "Beer and breweries in Africa" /Europe/Asia/North America/South America/Oceania. "Brewers and breweries" could also be renamed "Beer and breweries by region". And all the countries should also be renamed (and merged if needed) as, for example, "Beer and breweries of Germany", "Beer and breweries of Britain", "Beer and breweries of Poland". The word in each case would be beer rather than beers to allow for general articles on beer culture in each region as well as individual beers.

Comments, suggestions, objections, free beer and simple votes to Wiki Beer Project SilkTork 15:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Not too surprised, I hope: you're making me wonder just how gruff I was with you. :) In any case, well done, I'm sure you'll use the tools well. Alai 17:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your adminship. Please remember to stay away from "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named". ;-) Jayjg 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! You deserved it, and are most welcome! It was a pleasure working with you and Sango, it was an honor. Cheers! And let me know if you ever need my assistance for anything. Banez

Yeah, it was definitely fun working with you and Banes. But now that the community's agreed to put you to work, start mopping! ;) By the way, I added some handy buttons and links for you at User:Gryffindor/monobook.js. Hope you like them! Cheers, Sango123 (e) 03:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations from me, too, naturally! —Nightstallion (?) 20:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Kurfürstkindern

Kurfürst was a personal dignity, held by one king, one one duke, one markgraf and one pfalzgraf (plus three archbishops). The legitimate children of each would take their father's principal title, so the daughter of the Duke of Saxony (who was also a Kurfürst) would be styled a duchess or Herzogin until her marriage, at which time she would take the rank of her husband. In the case of Marie-Josèphe of Saxony, that fact that the duke who was her father was also the elected King of Poland is, I believe, irrelevant because the throne was not hereditary so her generation had no claim to the transitory royal status, only the persistent ducal status. --StanZegel (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that Kurfürst was an office that could only be held by one prince at a time, it was, after all, hereditary. The electoral dynasties gradually adopted the princely title for their cadets until, by the early 19th century, most of their daughters used princess rather than duchess, margravine or countess palatine (Pfalzgräfin), e.g. daughters of the Electors of Hesse(-Kassel), who alone continued to use Kurfürst as their monarchical title until they ceased to reign in 1866.

According to the 1961 Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels Fürstliche Häuser Band VI, Page 19, Marie-Josèphe's elder sister, Marie Amalie (1724-1760), prior to her 1738 marriage to King Carlos III of Spain, was titled (in abbreviation) "Przssin v. Sachsen". Although the Handbuch is not flawless, it does research and record titulature as well as genealogy, whereas the Online Gotha focuses on genealogy more than correct titulature, particularly for previous centuries (the Handbuch is considered the modern incarnation of the original Almanach de Gotha, not to be confused with the current series of that name, which is error-prone as well as hopelessly POV). The only authority that is arguably more accurate on historical titles than the Handbuch is Michel Huberty's "L'Allemagne Dynastique" (AD), which always cites precise, contemporary sources, and begins each volume with a section outlining the history of the dynasty's exact titles. But I don't have a copy of Huberty's volume on Saxony, which is out of print. However, another of Marie-Josèphe's sisters, Marie-Anne (1728-1797), can be found on p. 278 of AD's 1985 Tome IV on the Wittelsbachs, which records her marriage to the Elector Maximilian III of Bavaria. There it is noted that she was the daughter of "Frédéric II, Electeur de Saxe et Roi de Pologne", and her title is given as "princesse de Saxe". Where the Handbuch and AD agree on a title, I have yet to find error! Lethiere 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(In reply to your note on my talk page). Yes, AD and GHdA both do excellent research and can be relied upon more than any source, short of a relevant document issued by the Polish or Saxon court during Marie-Josèphe's life time. I joined in your conversation with Stan Zegel after following the Marie-Josèphe Talk discussion and tracking it over to your page. Albert of Saxe-Techen was undoubtedly entitled to Prince if his sisters were, but used his ducal title as Teschen's Landesherr. This was typical, just as the rulers of the County of Montbéliard (Mompelgard) reigned as "Dukes of Wurttemberg-Montbéliard because cadets of the House of Wurttemberg were all dukes thereof, and simply carried that higher title with them while ruling an immediate countship.

I followed your earlier discussion, and I agree with Charles that "Ritter" and "Edler" (but not "Edler Herr") were ranks in Germany's lower nobility rather than titles. WP articles are generally quite poor in differentiating between rank and title because in several languages often the same word is used for both or they have morphed into one another. Think of it like this: Although "earl" and "baron" are titles and ranks in the British nobility, "baronet" and "knight" are not -- rather, they are ranks within the non-noble gentry, that confer, by custom, the style of "Sir" upon men possessing those ranks. The difference is that "Ritter" and "Edler" (which I would translate as "Knight" and "Noble" in WP to avoid misleading readers into thinking they were part of the surname) were members of the hereditary nobility, whereas the British baronet and knight were not. But "Edler", "Noble" and "Herr" are not quite like (and rank above) the Dutch "Jonkheer" or the French "Ecuyer", which are styles (not titles or ranks) that could be assumed by any otherwise untitled nobleman: The closest German equivalent to these last two styles would be the use of "von" in the surname, except that the former always implies nobility in the Netherlands and (ancien régime) France, whereas the latter is a hint, not a proof. Gilbert von Studnitz is expert on this stuff. See http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/14c0a7dc87d347f9 Lethiere 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin congrat

Congrats! You now have the mop! --Exir Kamalabadi 11:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Monobook

Well, your monobook.js adds goodies to your interface like an edit count tab for user and talk pages, block and blocklog tabs alongside that, auto-afd, a link to the current page's logs in the left panel's toolbox, and other helpful tools. The code (mainly nicked from other users ;) works better in Mozilla Firefox than in Internet Explorer. If you decide to sign up as an admin coach, by the way, you'd make a great one for a very lucky coachee. :) Cheers, Sango123 (e) 11:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Japan-related topics notice board/ToDo

osu Nihonjoe,

you have asked for some help in moving the discussion page? I am a sysop and could be of assistance maybe, however I need to know what exactly happened what exactly is your request? Feel free to contact me any time, with kind regards. Gryffindor 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. You can see what happened by visiting this page and scrolling down. The edits in question are 2006-04-06 12:05:55 through 2006-04-06 12:08:55. Here's how I originally wanted to do it:

• Misplaced Pages:Japan-related topics notice board/ToDo → Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Japan/ToDo

I think the easiest fix would be to just undo the five edits in question. That would then allow me to just fix it the way it was supposed to be. Does that make sense? --日本穣 Nihonjoe 19:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, and the consensus for this move has been reached before, where did the vote take place? Gryffindor 19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...let's see where that page ended up...looks like here. Boy, this is really a mess. (^_^;;; --日本穣 Nihonjoe 19:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so this was a technical glitch? You want to have the Misplaced Pages:Japan-related topics notice board/ToDo moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Japan/ToDo, correct? Gryffindor 21:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Not so much technical as me just not paying attention. I moved the talk page instead of the main page. Moving Misplaced Pages:Japan-related topics notice board/ToDo to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Japan/ToDo is what I intended, so if you just delete the edits I listed above, then I can go in and fix things the way they were supposed to have been fixed in the first place. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Page has been moved. Is the result to your satisfaction? Gryffindor 21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 22:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Incoherence_in_French_titles_of_non-royalty

Hi there, Gryffindor. I am fine save for exam week at university. It's torturous! I'll give you a little bit of my insight here before I post at that discussion, which will be a bit later. I am going to mention German titles as well, since it may come up again and I feel it is a more pressing issue than the French, which I believe will be resolved quite easily.

I believe that English should be used if and whenever possible and that two languages should never, ever be mixed. For example, in the lower nobility of France and Germany nobles may be at (made up names) Jean, Comte de Bourgogne or Ludwig Graf von Altenberg. An example of the mixing I do not agree with is Prince Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst. I believe he should be at Chlodwig zu Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst or Chlodwig, Prince of Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst. The former is preferable as all others who held the office of prime minister have left the titles out of the names.

Titles derived from surnames should be kept fully in the native language and at the end of the name. Titles derived from places (Hohenlohe, etc) can be rendered in English, or with the original particle if no title is used (such as Prince Maximilian of Baden, but also Max von Baden).

Heads of families/houses should be treated in English with the form of "Name, Title of Designation". Royals should always have their titles translated to English. Dukes of Orleans, France, Counts of Paris, etc.

Consorts who otherwise fall under the minor nobility before marriage should have their names rendered in English if possible.

The only exceptions should be for people who are overwhelmingly referred to as something else, such as the duc de St-Simon and others. Charles 19:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sophie herself was *the* Duchess of Hohenberg, so if she was a consort, she would still be titled as such. Franz Ferdinand wasn't a sovereign, so in that aspect as well, I think Sophie would still be titled that way. Hohenlohe was a territory which became mediatized. Schillingsfürst was a name applied to one of the divisions of Hohenlohe when it was divided previously. It was the seat of literally, the Princes of Hohenlohe at Schillingsfürst (at becomes a hyphen).

Consorts to royals/nobles who weren't the heads of houses/territories should all just be put at their birth names for now. I believe it is current Wiki practice. I think we should try to fix the rules before applying fixes.

Crown princesses who never become grand duchesses/queens/empresses (such as Marie-Josèphe of Saxony) can be a tricky situation, as you mentioned. If they did not die with any sort of crown princely title (by remarriage, et cetera) then they obviously should not use it as an article title. The trick is when you do have crown princesses who died as such or who were widowed as such... I think the practice so far with all royals is to have them at the territorial designations they held at birth, with only consorts not using the title. I am really undecided. If the woman died as such, I can see reason for her being kept as such. But it doesn't seem strong enough right now. I would just put them at Title Name of Birth-designation. The mother of Karl I (really should be at Charles I) though never even was a crown princess, so she should stay where she is.

I read what has been said so far on the French titles. I agree that offices with no good English form should most certainly be kept in French. All other high and major nobles should utilise English, unless overwhlemingly referred to as such. Using a lowercase noble title when using French should be a given, with no exceptions. I don't agree with what was said about "Count van Hoorn" or "Duke de ... etc".

The exam I have tomorrow is German (written) and after the weekend I have physics, calculus, biology, German (oral) and psychology. Charles 20:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I fear my brain has just about hit its upper-threshold for learning! Right now is break time :-) Charles 20:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2

tagging images

I responded at my own talk. If you leave another message calling for an answer, please stop by later. I generally respond to requests at my own talk to preserve the context. --Irpen 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Deckiller has blocked an AOL ISP and me in the process

Deckiller has blocked the AOL ISP 207.200.116.134. I know this because I use AOL, and his block has effected me. Can you please remove the block promptly, I am in the middle of remodeling the Marshall, Texas article which currently has an inuse notice on it. If not can you remove the inuse notice from the page. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said on his userpage, it must have been an autoblock, since I did not block that IP. — Deckiller 23:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

French noble titles

I have never been sure what your position on these matters is; the following propositions seem to be either true or guidelines, depending:

• Most foreign titles do in fact have English versions: Duke of Anjou, Count of Angoulême.
• When they do, the English wikipedia should use them, just as foreign wikipedias use roi d'Angleterre'
• The easiest and surest way to find out what these English versions are is to look up the person concerned in reliable English texts.
  • Scholarly sources often use the foreign style because the author has been reading French. If you find both Duke of Orleans and duc d'Orléans of the same man, we should use the first (and in this case we don't).
• When (as with Captal de Buch), no English version exists, or it is patently both rare and artificial, we should attempt to be barbarous neither in French nor in English. Septentrionalis 22:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Old" image

I do notice that you're not quite in danger of breaking the 3RR... The first one was almost a month ago! OTOH, that doesn't help much, if Irpen keeps re-reverting back again. I must admit I'm not really fully up on custom and practice of WP image policy in general, or "old looking" images in particular. Perhaps you might enquire at WP:IUP, say? Alai 23:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gryffindor, I just saw this cruising around on my last night before going off-line. For what it's worth, I inquired about a similar photo of a PD-Old painting from the German copyright guys and was told that there is no such thing as a copyrighted photo of a two-dimensional anything (in this case painting or graphic) if the object of the photo is in the PD (like this one almost has to be, it being from 1752). Not sure how that works in enwiki or Poland, but I'd suspect copyright would be tough to defend on this photo based on what they told me at dewiki about this sort of thing.

He's clearly not broken the 3RR, as the rule is against more than three reverts per 24h. Hope you guys end up with some sort of agreement on this. Alai 16:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I said that also on my talk page. — nathanrdotcom 18:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA

A suggestion to sprotect.

In my opinion, these articles listed in these contribs need to be sprotected because they keep getting hit by the same vandal (but different IPs, and they're all new anons). (Some admins' talk pages are getting hit too, and I don't know what you want to do with those) It'll give you something to do with your shiny new powers if you agree with me. :)

• Special:Contributions/222.98.234.224
• Special:Contributions/82.236.188.44
• Special:Contributions/201.17.180.185
• Special:Contributions/203.87.64.214
• Special:Contributions/218.219.150.35
• Special:Contributions/81.169.147.22
• Special:Contributions/217.75.51.141
• Special:Contributions/69.41.54.49
• Special:Contributions/86.51.0.131
• Special:Contributions/213.140.56.244
• *NEW* Special:Contributions/85.92.129.202

They are mostly the same articles being hit repeatedly. This is just disgraceful and childish. — nathanrdotcom 14:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Greetings! Yes, that article could be protected; however if you look at the history of this particular vandal, you will see (example -- the last one on the list above, 213.140.56.244) that he doesn't really care what article he vandalises, he just wants his edit summary to show on recent changes. The only advantage of this type of vandal is that they "out" a lot of open proxies, allowing us to block them indefinitely. Antandrus (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As of your other question, it's a judgement call. I'm no expert on image tagging. It looks like an old image to me so PD-art or something similar would apply. Placing no-source tags on obvious ripoffs from websites and magazines is probably more important to the project, but that's just my opinion. Hope that helps and happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Antandrus said above. The vandal is targeting a series of articles, rather than just one, so it's problematic. We systematically block the open proxies indefinitely. The last few times, all the edits were being reverted quite rapidly, less than 60 seconds in most cases, and blocks were being done by three or four or five admins less than a minute apart. So I guess we can cross our fingers and hope for the best. Regarding the issue of whether a modern photograph of an out-of-copyright painting (or other old image) can itself be copyrighted, I'm not really sure... I've heard different opinions. -- Curps 15:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Gomperz, Laufer

Hello! I made Gomperz and Laufer article. can you expand? --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza User Page Award

Hi, i just thought seeing as we don't have a spammer to tell us when to choose our 1 finalist, that i would tell you my self. Remember to elect your one finalist from 3, and then email all 5 scores to Rune Welsh. Thanks! --Ali K 08:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would've volunteered for this if there was another way to do this besides manually. — nathanrdotcom 04:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind doing this by Fri 14 March? Thanks. (^'-')^ Covington 04:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (new spammer)

S'okay. Glad to hear you're okay. Here's some stress-busting coffee. (^'-')^ Covington 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Poland related images

Tnx for leaving us a message, and if any Poland-related images come up for deletion please let us know and we will try to look for sources. Btw, take a look at Image:PZL P.11c.jpg. Is scan an acceptable source? Is there a way to tag such images to prevent the Lazy Bot (aka OrphanBot) from tagging scanned images as unsourced? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Tnx for the reply. I think copying it to the image's talk page may be useful.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Caroline, Princess of Hanover

Hi Gryffindor,

Could you take a look at the vote at this page? It's up for a move but there is no reason for it to be, to be honest. I posted evidence to prove it. But please, as always, decide for yourself. Charles 22:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Joska Fischer

Hey there!

I stumbled across the article on Joska Fischer, and found it to be horribly biased. I dont know half as much as I should to actually correct the article though. Seeing as you are Category:User de-N, study international politics and have several environmentally friendly uboxes, I though you might want to take look!

Thanks! The Minister of War 00:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Please put all tasty Easter wishes here!

Austrian Emperors Francis Joseph and Charles

Hi Gryffindor,

I have brought the articles for these two emperors up for move. Would you care to lend some insight and possibly a vote? Thanks. (Oh, and I did rather well on those exams I was telling you about) Charles 20:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, they did go rather well. They were all in German. I see what you mean with Isabella and Juan Carlos, but I really think there is different treatment with Franco-Iberian sovereigns and Germanic ones. German is a rather "hard" language and frequently, if not most of the time, you will find sovereigns almost into the twentieth century being referred to with English exonyms for German given names. The case is strong for Karl I, with the results I posted on that page from books and scholarly papers, but also with his beatification site and the fact that his page used Charles anyway. Charles 16:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The naming is always interesting in that the type exposure given to them is so wide and varied. English/German usage is even for a while and then one trumps the other and vice-versa. Certainly, William II is just as correct as Wilhelm II is. There is no doubt about that. French and Spanish almost always translate such names. English, as the language of commerce and so on, pivots on the issue. Certainly, there is a case for Charles I of Austria, without question. The rest is almost even and in my opinion, for the sake of consistency, it should be discussed and weighed. I am hoping for Karl I to be moved to Charles I. I am not as optimistic for Francis Joseph. Charles 19:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for the personal "thank you" for voting on your RfA. I know I'm late, but I just wanted to let you know CONGRATS on getting the mop, and I hope you're enjoying it. All the best!--ViolinGirl 18:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job ...

... on the Marcel Prawy article! All the best, <KF> 22:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Spanish nobles

That is a very interesting question. With Spanish nobles (and with all others), I believe we should always use the highest title, unless they are well known by a name and surname or by another title. If there are mutiple high titles, like with the Duchess of Alba, the best known title should be used, as it is in that case. For instance, in the British system, there is are people with mutliple titles of the same degree who are only known by one or two (there is a duke three times over, who I cannot recall at the moment, who is known by two of his ducal titles). Spanish is usually very clean and easy to translate. I do think English should be used when at all possible. Much like titles in French using des or du (Marquis des Baux, etc), those particles generally become of. Using of the or of los is something that requires careful thought and some investigation. The form of Ambrosia Spinola, Marquess of Balbases is completely acceptable in my opinion unless Balbases is say, a collection of lands or islands, etc, which would make it truly plural. So yes, in short, I do believe English should be used whenever possible and untranslated versions should be left for titles for which the translation is not known or exact (Chevalier, Chatelain (which is castellan, but that is awkward), Vidame, etc). French should be the only one with exceptions, where either language is common. One must remember, French enjoyed the status of lingua franca for many centuries. Charles 13:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The example you cite for Charles Mordaunt, 3rd Earl of Peterborough, 1st Earl of Monmouth is indicative of cases where we will be stuck with long article titles, *if* both titles are well known. These are rare and unavoidable. I agree 100% that untranslatable titles are best left as is so that a translation may be investigated. I believe that they should be left at the end though (purely for example, even though these can be translated: Karl Franz Graf von Berg but not Graf Karl Franz von Berg). Untranslated titles should always fall at the end of the name. I maintain Reichs- as a prefix to a title is not and should not be translated into English as Imperial Baron, etc. Pretend you have Karl Reichsgraf von X and Hans Reichsgraf von Y. Karl is Count of X and Hans is Count of Y. But together they are Barons of the (Holy Roman) Empire. The use of Imperial in English would be title inflation and most likely bothersome to a rank-conscious imperial family. Reich is best described as realm, I believe. But that's another discussion. BTW, I've always seen vom und zum Stein as vom Stein. Maybe Baron of Stein could be used? After all, we don't refer to members of the House of Liechtenstein as Princes and Princesses of and in Liechtenstein, even though we very well could if pressed to. For the purpose of brevity, do you think that's an option for the title? Baron vs Freiherr is at best a case by case issue... I think it should all go to the end of the name if untranslated (that is, treated as a surname). Starting a name with a non-English title is bad form in my eyes. Also, I think mixing English titles and German prepositions is bad as well. Mary Vetsera is under a name by which she is commonly called. I think it is fine. The only other options I see now are Mary Freiin von Vetsera or (ugh) Baroness Mary von Vetsera. Charles 19:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mary, Baroness Vetsera or Baroness Mary Vetsera would not be awful at all... I was voicing that Baroness Mary von Vetsera would be an awful choice. But if Mary can be called a Baroness Vetsera, why can't Heinrich Friedrich Karl be called Baron Stein? Obviously, both of them had some version of von, etc in their name. Plus, most statesmen of the era seem to be referred to by a title then the name/territory, such as Prince Hohenlohe (really of Hohenlohe) or Prince Bismarck, etc. In general, titles which are derived from surnames should either have no preposition or should be left at the end of the name and in the native language. Or the title can be omitted and the particles could be left as is, if that person was known outside of being royal/noble. One of the sources used on the Stein page uses vom Stein. I would rather use Baron Stein than Baron of Stein anyway. Charles 19:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gryffindor,

I've been posting the various articles on Spanish viceroys of New Spain, most of them new. It's nice to see someone reading them!

However, I would like to point out something about the use of titles in the Spanish reference works I've consulted. Lists of viceroys are sometimes given with the name and title, and sometimes with the name only. But in encyclopedia-like articles, the title of the person is never given in the title of the article (Enciclopedia de México, now part of Britannica, for example). Literally never in all the works I have access to. They are all Mexican, so I can't be sure the same conventions are used in Spain, but I have no evidence that they aren't. So moving a link in an alphabetical category list to the title rather than the name means it won't be in the place where Mexicans will look for it. Rbraunwa 18:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gryffindor,

Thanks for the link to the non-royal names conventions. I'd had trouble finding that before.

Putting a nobleman's title in the title of an article would not be my first preference, but obviously it works either way, and I understand the desire for consistency. I don't have a problem with that usage. However, alphabetizing a viceroy's entry under his title rather than his name is more problamatic. As I mentioned, in chronological lists of viceroys in Mexico, the title is frequently given after the name, but not always. However, in alphabetical listings, the viceroy is always found under the first of his surnames, never under the title. So listing these individuals in alphabetical category lists under their titles is making them more difficult to find. And I don't think this applies only to Mexican historians. I think it applies to English-speaking scholars of Mexico as well. What the situtation in Spain is, I have no idea, but in Mexico these individuals are thought of by name, not by title. It seems to me this is not far from the example of Bertrand Russell given in the "Other non-royal names" section. Rbraunwa 17:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on your selectionas an administrator. I had fallen sick and so missed the party! A belated Easter greetings. --Bhadani 09:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Louise of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

Louise was the consort of sovereign Duke who yielded authority over his duchy as such a sovereign. I think she should be left as is unless the rule unambiguously states that the consort treatment is used only for queens and empresses. I personally feel it is applicable to all situations in which the consort in question can be considered the wife of a sovereign -- whether minor or major. Charles 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Manuel Godoy

It is not normal - or appropriate - in an encyclopedia article to list all of a person's titles in the first sentence. It is also contrary to Wikiquette to change British to American spelling (marquess to marquis) - although admittedly the later is also used in Britain. Noel S McFerran 05:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Genji update

Hello, I thought I would let you know how I was doing regarding the Tale of Genji.

I ended switching to the Seidensticker translation because I found it too difficult as first-time reader to keep track of the characters in the Tyler version. I own both editions, so if I want some cultural detail clarified, I need only consult the vastly superior footnotes of the Tyler edition.

I've only made it halfway through the book, because I find it very easy to get distracted by other things (TV, music, other people talking) and a book like this really does demand more concentration than the average novel.

I've made a few notes along the way (not nearly enough) and I do plan on proceeding with the Genji chapter summary project. In the meantime, I've also established an account on French Wikipédia, and I've found that their articles on The Tale of Genji (French article) and fr:Murasaki Shikibu are much less developed than the English language versions.

Congratulations on becoming an administrator, BTW. --Tachikoma 22:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at Reza Pahlavi II. It really is a most appallingly shoddy article, but is being defended by a coterie of Iranian monarchists who think the hagiographic tone is acceptable. Even the name, given that he is not a reigning monarch, is questionable. FearÉIREANN\ 20:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Concepción Heredia-Rosas

Hello Gryffindor, how are you doing? Would you care to check this out and tell me what you think? I am certain that this woman is a hoax. The woman in question does not exist outside of WP results and a few delusional forum postings by a guy claiming to be a viscount. It was claimed that this woman is descended from the Archduke Louis, a son of Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor. Archduke Louis appears to have died childless and an Anna Victoria alleged to have been his daughter does not exist as a Countess of Habsburg-Lorraine, as claimed. Charles 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Spanish nobles, I am not surprised. I have a few people in mind who go around such articles and vote to oppose on little or no basis. But alas, that is the way of life, I suppose. The obscurity of some nobles is no excuse to use the relatively few instances of a foreign-language title when there are completely valid and accurate English versions. You'd laugh if you say one person's thoughts on Bourbon of Parma/Bourbon-Parma. He started to talk about Chinese crêpes. Charles 13:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Archduke/archduchess was not in official use before Maximilian I

Please stop writing anachronisms to biographies of medieval Habsburgs. If youknow anything about the use of the title of archduke, you would know that the assumption by Rudolf IV was based on a document he had forged, and only Frederick III granted the title officially, first to his son and later to certain male cousins. First archduchesses appear only among their descendants. Shilkanni 09:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to Elisabeth of Austria (d. 1505), but if you have put "archduchess" also to any other biography of a medieval female Habsburg, the same applies. Have you??

You are incorrect when indicating that before Rudolf IV, the title somehow already was in existence. Of course, since the first forgery ever to introduce the idea was made at instigation of Rudolf IV, none had thus even heard of it before. Emperor Charles IV refused to recognize the title Rudolf IV had invented through that forgery, so it was not in use even in Rudolf's time nor in long time afterwards. I request you not to spread untruths like "the title 'Archduke' was not fully introduced until Rudolf IV". The history of the title archduke (see that article) goes so that Frederick III confirmed the title in 1453, but only to actual rulers of Austrian territories, i.e himself. A couple of years later, Frederick's younger brother (when receiving his province of trans-Enns) started to use it. Only in 1477, the first cousin was authorized to use it. Frederick's son and heir Maximilian started to use it only after his wife's death that occurred in 1482. In 15th century, it was limited to actual rulers, so no female children used it. Only later, on 16th century, daughters became entitled to it. (the actual use can be checked from e.g ) Documents show that Ladislaus the Posthumous, who died in 1457, never used it - he used the title "Duke of Austria". Ladislaus' sister elisabeth accordingly was never an archduchess. The title you have written in that article (and possibly to others) therefore show just bad scholarship, not any proper handling of history. Contrary to your conclusion "I do not see any problems with the referral", there are obvious problems in such referrals, as any objective historian understands. Shilkanni 09:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is only natural to ask whether the error is systematical, i.e repeated over a multitude of articles. Of course you are incorrect in alleging "she was referred as such" - there are no documents to show such (contemporaneous) referral. If you know any such documents, please kindly list them as sources, as actually is required by WP relevant policy. Shilkanni 10:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please do other editors a favour and start to use extended edit summaries. Such summaries as "fix" are of little help, really. --Ghirla 10:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Happy Birthday

Primate 05:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did find it on Esperanza. That's why your bombarded with all this stuff! --Primate 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday, Gryffindor! — Ilyanep (Talk) 15:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your birthday was listed on the May calendar. :) Have a good one, Sango123 (e) 20:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday! I hope you have a nice cake, or cake equivalent. RyanGerbil10 20:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday!!! I hope it was awesomely stupendous!! -- Natalya 23:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gryffindor

Misplaced Pages is a place that I generally come to when I have free time or to just browse. Lately, however, I have been experiencing what I can best describe as an effort by some (numbering in the low single digits) to oppose or revert some of the most innocent edits I have made, dragging me into long discussions that frequently result in disparaging remarks with regard to my character or motive. As a place of relaxation, it is completely unacceptable to me. Since it is relentless and continuous, I have come up with an analogy: If you built a house on a fault line and it was knocked over in an earthquake, how many times could you rebuild it? Don't get me wrong, I have a strong character but I suffer from low patience. My edits, in good faith, are generally not substantial, but mere tidbits. When someone initiates a lengthy argument about them, I want to come to this place less and less. I am still on the fence as to whether I will make my absence permanent or temporary and when it will commence. It will definitely occur though. You and I haven't seen eye to eye on some things, but I've always enjoyed our banter on royals, naming, etc. When/if I come back (subject to when I leave), I will be very glad to resume them. Charles 19:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly low-key and bashful about my confrontations with others. My problem is that when confronted, I tend to confront back. I fear that if I draw attention to it or participate in it further, it will continue and I'll end up making myself look like an idiot, if any of that made sense at all (and it probably didn't). I think I will come back now, but I need to start this vacation of sorts first. Chances are I'll keep checking my talk pages and I'll keep my email link active. I doubt I will do any editing though. Charles 14:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

Hello. I'm new here.

Hi, I am a new Wikipedian looking for advice. I would like to upload 2 .jpeg images to the article about Frederic Bourin. Specifically, they're 2 face pics. I found them on a couple of news articles , (two Estonian, one Vietnamese) as well as a blog (American), and I haven't found anything to indicate that it has been copyrighted. Before I post it, I want to make sure that I'm not violating any Wikipolicies. Since you contributed to the article on how to tag copyrighted materials, and you have a cool nickname, I figured you would be the person to ask. Here are the links to the pages of origin, in the event that you see something I missed, which would indicate a copyright or other sticky mess that is better just avoided. http://noviomagus.tripod.com/chat/index.blog?entry_id=1133210 http://www.postimees.ee/140605/esileht/midagi_erilist/168761.php http://www.vnexpress.net/Vietnam/The-gioi/Cuoc-song-do-day/2005/06/3B9DF26C/ http://www.postimees.ee/140605/esileht/midagi_erilist/168761.php

You're too awesome for words, Gryf. Thanks!Wandering Star 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board#Magyars of Burgenland

Somebody asked for input regarding a naming convention. As you are both Austrian and interested in naming conventions, I was wondering whether you could help? I'm not certain we actually have Austrians reading the noticeboard, so I thought I'd write an extra message. Kusma (討論) 16:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Convention on nation articles

Hi, Gryffindor. I noticed you changed a few country articles from language such as "The Republic of Cameroon is . . . " to "Cameroon, offiicially the Republic of Cameroon, is . . . ". Can you point me to what convention you are basing these changes on? Thanks, — BrianSmithson 18:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my page

I replied on my page :-) Fantasy 10:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gryffindor

I received some really good advice on my departure page about ignoring the problems and just going back after the fact. I am taking that advice as reason for me to stick around, but not on an indepth basis. Sorry for the drama I might have caused with my initial decision to leave! Charles 20:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Two misnamed royals

Hi Gryffindor;

Can you join the vote at Talk:Marie-Chantal, Princess of Greece and Denmark and Talk:Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin? They have been moved without discussion. Thanks. Charles 16:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Austrian nobility

Hi Gryffindor;

I have been looking over the Austrian nobility page and have been thinking that it's time to clean it up a bit. Since that is practically where we started talking, I thought I'd ask you about the following:

For the headings of families by rank, I believe that English titles would suffice. For instance, Archdukes and Archduchess or Archducal families and, say, Princes and Princesses or Princely families. The translations for the titles already exist higher up on the page, or they could be included under the headings themselves. I believe it would be much neater. Also, for the naming, how about a chart like the format used at Pretender? It would look like this:

What do you think? Charles 20:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the table is rather long... Do you still think it would be possible to have single page dedicated to the nobles? Or possibly pages like Counts in Austria-Hungary or Counts of the Austrian Empire? I believe the chart format is rather user friendly, but the trade off is that it is rather long. It may be more encyclopedic to seperate the listing of nobles from the article about them in general, much like the rules of states are seperated from pages about ther monarchies they ruled. I think it would signifigantly cut down the length of the page. Each heading could have a note such as "for a listing of counts, see main page at..." or whatever form is deemed more suitable. After all, the pages about the British peerage, for instance, have seperate pages listing dukes, marquesses, earls, etc. Let me know. Charles 16:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretenders Ernst August

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ernest Aug. 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 10:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)