User talk:Giano - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 23:21, 1 February 2006 (→Styles clarification: Me too). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:21, 1 February 2006 by Bishonen (talk | contribs) (→Styles clarification: Me too)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

	Watch for Peacocks and extravagance Theatrical spectacular - Bishonen's own story Tremble at the crocodiles! See the flying cupids! Marvel as Venus ascends into the heavens! Read if you dare
	Coming shortly - 3rd February 2006 Restoration spectacular on the main page!

Old messages are at

Looking for picture of Palazzo Pitti

Hi Giano, I need your help. Don't be afraid, I don't need any translation. But I saw, that you posted that nice pictures with several plans of the Palazzo Pitti and I have an exam on that topic soon. I'd love to have a closer look at the picture, but the resolution is too low. So I want to ask, if you can tell me, where you got the picture from or if you have it in a higher resolution. Thanks in advance, Sarah (atout@gmx.de) 16:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good

The Most Noble Giano. It has a certain ring to it, you know. ;-D SlimVirgin 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Tarquin Chinless-Barnstar

Is it really true that Misplaced Pages policy says all articles about British Dukes dead and alive have to begin "The Most Noble" Tarquin Chinless-Wonder?

Users who make me smile get rewarded. Absolute classic, that. Keep up the good work, and good luck getting this one resolved. Jtdirl is often a complete bugger to deal with. Rob Church (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A comment

The Most Noble in 2006?!! Zis is most ridiculous!! By ze way I have a prominent chin (c'est très beau, non?)

Arniep 00:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Replying nevertheless

I've unprotected my page, so now you can see the fruits and nuts converge on me. See this thread. Bishonen | talk 02:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Image:Visconti56.jpg

Greetings. Back in October you uploaded Image:Visconti56.jpg. It doesn't have an image tag, and it isn't used in any articles. Mind if I delete it? – Quadell 14:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Bob McEwen

Greetings, Giano!
You voted to support my FAC for James Aubrey, for which I say thanks. I wonder if you would support my current candidate, Bob McEwen: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Bob McEwen. PedanticallySpeaking 16:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Styles

Hi, I posted last night but it got a bit lost under the barrage. Arniep 16:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the debate is rambling on a bit. IMO we should follow the same conventions as other standard reference works, i.e. just use Sir and no other honorifics. Arniep 16:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong link

Never mind about the link, I got you loud and clear without it, I've responded at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you always reminding me I stink at crosswords?

How about "unascertainable"? Bishonen | talk 12:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

Monarchists

Oh, I think User:Adam Carr was very definitely implying that monarchists would be against these changes. Difficult to read his posts any other way. -- Necrothesp 15:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well if that is the case, he looks to be proved wrong. I have changed about 20 "Most Nobles", including the high profile Wellington and Marlborough and so far not a murmur. What though has concerned me a little, as I look at these pages for the first time, is the very poor quality minimal content of some of these Duke's entries, which leads me to wonder why they are here at all. take for instance George Sutherland-Leveson-Gower, 3rd Duke of Sutherland, I'm very surprised no one has volunteered him for deletion, apart from enjoying his own name, and marrying a non notable woman and having 5 non notable children what has he done to be here. I do wonder if it is not this sort of vacuous page which irritates those with less interest in the subject. Perhaps those that want to see a compete peerage here, should wait until they have more information (assuming there is any) before creating these dreadful stubs. I note the most thrilling piece of intelligence on that page is "George Granville Sutherland-Leveson-Gower (1850–1858), died young." I rather think we could have worked that out for ourselves. I am not against the members of the peerage appearing here, but at least let then be notable for more than being born. Their pages should conform to the same rules as all other notable people here. Giano | talk 16:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect many people would like every holder of every title here. -- Necrothesp 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect some might too, but that's not really the answer is it, a lot of people like me just want to see a comprehensive well informed encyclopedia, and half those pages are not well informed or comprehensive, in fact they tell us nothing. Giano | talk 16:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is important to have a full history of the breeding stock for the current crop of competitors in the Upper Class Twit of the Year competition. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That comment is hardly helpful BoG! But thank you for you interest. Giano | talk 17:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I disagree: that page tells a lot: that the chap was a Duke, when he was Duke, when he was born and died, who his first wife was (not non-notable, by the way: she was a Mistress of the Robes and was created a Countess in her own right) and his second wife, who his children were and some of their relevant dates. What it does not do is tell us much about what the chap did, but in that way it is no worse than many other stubs. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If his wife was Mistress of the Robes, why is the page not on her instead then. Or are women on wikipedia only represented through their husbands. Obviously in her role as Mistress of the Robes she influenced many global events. However, I don't think just being a Duke makes one notable, they are hardly a rare or endangered species there must be many thousand world wide, or do you only want to see non-notable British dukes - I can think of quite a few obscure Italian noblemen who could nave a page too if you want to see that type of thing. Giano | talk 17:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

AND if she was that famous and had the gumption to be made a countess why not merge his dull old page into her's? I shall shortly be starting a series on the lesser known Dukes of Castelluzzo you'll find them riveting ALoan especially the one who like to do his own Christmas shopping. Giano | talk 17:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

She already has a page - Anne Sutherland-Leveson-Gower, Duchess of Sutherland. Anyway, I have added the dates of George's short parliamentary career in the lower house, places of marriage (Cliveden! Florida!) and death, and some external links. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I say, the more the merrier. I'm all for Italian cleavage ... er peerage. Are the Dukes of Castelluzzo anything like the Dukes of Hazard.? Paul August ☎ 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No they are not. Now calm down - you are becoming over exited , go and flog yourself or have a cold shower or something Giano | talk 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, how blissful it is, Giano, to have missed the whole uproar. I've put my oar in a similar stretch of water over the provincial vulgarism né that only appears in the biographies of popes. The proles do seem to swing between being absurdly impressed and absurdly dismissive...Wetman 08:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. My problem is that from writing architecture one does seem to come into contact with the aristocracy. I have no problem with them, or those who wish to deify them. My problem comes from pages which are less than glorious, relating nothing more than their less than interesting children. I can deduct from the minimal information that a child born in 1890 and died in 1895 "died young", and have yet to meet a Duke referred to as as "The Most Noble" on anything other than a command from Buckingham Palace, and even HM is dropping a lot of the formality. So to see all this pompous piffle here is deeply irritating. I suspect the European aristos (while more often than not better bred) would encounter a less welcoming atmosphere - and if they were low achievers too, quite rightly. Giano | talk 08:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Most Noble

I just want some kind of style kept in. We were only using "The Most Noble" before because it's what goes in front of "Forenames, Duke of X" — now we're just stating the conventional style ("The Duke of X") "His Grace" is the appropriate one to use so I'm quite happy sticking to it. Proteus (Talk) 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

But all peers are inherently notable not through their peerage alone but due to their membership of the House of Lords (or the Scottish and Irish Houses of Lords), and it seems to be an accepted principle that anyone who has been a member of a national legislature is automatically notable enough for inclusion. (Some articles on minor MPs are equally short and stubby, yet no one objects to them.) Proteus (Talk) 21:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Proteus is quite right to state that members of national legislatures are regarded as automatically notable. Any hereditary peer before 1999 falls into that category. The solution to stubby articles on peers isn't to delete them but rather to expand them. Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I obviously agree that full and detailed articles are better than stubs, but stubs are still better than nothing at all. Proteus (Talk) 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Not dead yet!

Thank you for your concern, Giano. I'm still around, though mostly because I'm busy with WP-unrelated matters I've radically pruned my watchlist, which further reduces the amount of work I do here, et cetera. (Odd: perhaps half of even the small number of articles to which I make changes are on subjects of absolutely no interest to me.)

A popular travel (?) magazine here recently published a lavishly illustrated hors série volume on Sicily (with a considerable amount of text by an acquaintance of mine). I enjoyed seeing a number of familiar buildings for the first time. -- Hoary 05:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no, the author I mentioned isn't WP-related! If you email me your "street address", I'll send you a copy. -- Hoary 11:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Styles clarification

Hi, your comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Clarification_of_styles. Thanks Arniep 22:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... I came here on the same errand. Bishonen | talk 23:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC).