Someone else

Morestuff at: User_talk:Someone_else/1

Peerage article formats

Regarding the Marquess of Queensberry and the "idiot". I was researching the Dukes of Hamilton (draft page currently in my sandbox) and came upon the family connection to the Dukes of Queensberry/Queensbury(sic), confused as to why the Dukes of Queensberry were not holders of the marquessate, I dug deeper and found this page[1] which states the following:

James, 3rd Marquess of Queensberry

James, eldest son of James, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, was criminally insane and was kept under lock and key at all times. Legend has it that while the Duke was away celebrating the "Act of Union", James escaped his locked quarters, captured and roasted a small kitchen boy, and was discovered trying to eat the poor lad. Critics of the "Act of Union" claimed it a "judgement on the Duke for his odious share in the Union." James was allowed to inherit the Marquissate and Earldom of Queensberry but, due to his mental state, did not succeed to the Dukedom which was passed to his younger brother Charles. James died in 1715, and his titles also passed to his younger brother, Charles, 3rd Duke of Queensberry.

So it is quite right for James to be listed as the 3rd Marquess. His brother was the 3rd Duke and 4th Marquess. I have had a heavy workload over the last few weeks and haven't been able to spend as much time on Wikipedia as normal. I will add and correct the relevant info regarding this title and the Duke of Queensberry sometime soon. Take care. Mintguy 20:38, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Depite popular belief abroad, The Times isn't a London Newspaper. It is a national newspaper.

Yes, I know. And despite popular belief in Britain, the use of "The Times" as an identifier is insufficient without further qualification abroad. "The Times" is usually indexed and catalogued under "The Times" with the parenthetical identifier (of London) so some poor New Yorker doesn't get confused and think we're talking about HIS newspaper. -- Someone else 17:01, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In the context of a British sporting figure, quoting an article written in 1895, I think such a confusion is highly unlikely. In addition calling it the Times (of London) is factually incorrect. Referring to it as a British newspaper rather than a London one in some form or other should be used instead. I appreciate that saying "The British national newspaper The Times" is a rather longwinded disambiguation, but it is accurate, whilst of London, isn't. Mintguy 17:16, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And yet the sad truth is, when I looked this particular article up, I had to use the call number for "The Times (of London)". Nothing is indexed under "The British national newspaper "The Times"", and nothing is indexed under "The Times (of England)" or "The Times (Britain)". It's standard cataloging practice, not something I'm making up. Using the qualifier (of London) is meant to identify the paper, not restrict its coverage or rename it: The New York Times, after all, is considered a US national paper. -- Someone else 17:25, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just because a misconception is popular is no reason to let it persist, otherwise the article on the moon would be speculating on what kind of cheese it's made from. I would imagine it's catalogued in that way because using a city name is standard US practice, and it has become adopted thus. Out of curiosity, what is the call number for "The Sun" (of London)?

Reporting the facts about how something can be found for reference is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation. One can wish things were always referred to by unambiguous names, but they aren't. As for "The Sun", I'm checking in the catalog now (is it actually library material?) -- The New York Public Library gives 12 choices for The Sun, of which " Sun (London, England : 1792) " seems to have stopped being received on Feb. 25, 1871: I suspect not a contiguous forefather of the current "The Sun": which they don't seem to carry. The Library of Congress catalog also does not seem to subscribe to this particular piece of journalism...though it's possible I've overlooked it and consultation with a friendly reference librarian would reveal where it's hidden. Sad really, as it might cheer up a few Congressmen. Yale has 252 entries for periodicals named "The Sun", and I tired before being ABSOLUTELY sure it doesn't carry the Murdoch publication: Vancouver, Baltimore, New York, Cape Town, Kansas City, the extinct London one carried by the NYPL, but not, it seems, the colourful new version. -- Someone else 22:55, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--- Thanks for the redirect from Crown immunity. I've fleshed it out a bit; thanks for pointing out to me. Alex756

Hi. I've only recently become interested in the British peerage through trying to disambiguate them all so I know bugger all, but surely the 'Earl of Oxford and Mortimer' means the Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer. As per the Britannica article http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=59277. Mintguy

It does indeed, but it does not mean the holder is "Earl of Oxford" and "Earl Mortimer": it is a single peerage title "Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer", and is so treated by the "Complete Peerage" - and separately from "Earl of Oxford". Volume X, p. 264, note (c): 'This extraordinarily worded Earldom, "Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer" is but one title and paid the fees as such."...There was no descent from the Veres and apparently none from the Mortimers, but the title Oxford may have been chosen because the grantee's grandmother (Brilliana Conway, wife of Sir Robert Harley, K.B.) was niece of the wife of Horatio (Vere), Lord Vere of Tilbury, who was grandson of the 15th Earl of Oxford. For comments on the precipitancy with which the Crown countenanced the taking of this great name and dignity before there was absolute proof that no member of the Vere family still existed with a possible claim to it, see ante, p. 261, Note. According to Edward Harley, his brother was "so cautious in this matter, that to prevent any slur on her Majesty or himself, he took with it [Oxford] the title of Mortimer, to which family he was allied by blood".' -- Someone else 21:55, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hm... so the The Sun version of that is that he was worried that a de Vere might pop up and claim the earldom Oxford, so he ended up with Mortimer aswell just in case. :)

BTW. Since my first efforts with peerage titles on Wikipedia (which was simple disambiguation) I've been developing a format for such articles whereby it contains firstly a list of associated titles, then a description of the creations and successions (i.e. so and so was so and so's third cousin twice removed etc..) and then a list of succesion (See Duke of Hamilton] for an example). I think this is neater than some of the formats used by others (such as Isis) and I've been changing some of those (like the Duke of Somerset). Specifically I think having "; son of.." "; grandson of.." etc.. after each succesion looks untidy (having said that I've broken the rule with the Earls of Selkirk who are linked to the Dukes of Hamilton). I also think having the dates as well as the years of birth/death after a name on this list looks untidy too, escpecially if it is known for some individuals and unknown for others. You can always put this detail in the biography of the individual if it is known. I would be interested in your comments on this format and of course any corrections. Mintguy 22:20, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I sadly have not seen what The Sun had to say about the Oxford title, but it's hard to imagine being wrong in more ways than asserting that marrying an illegitimate descendant of a carrier of the title "Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer" would give someone a claim to the title "Earl of Oxford"...though I suppose one could be<G>. I've just taken a brief look at your new format. There are problems with "allied titles" in that they don't always get inherited together with the main title (when they were created at different times or with different remainders), and "son of" etc is sometimes useful in cases where an extremely distant personage gets a title (fourth cousin or so)... but the former format could certainly be improved... let me look at the two formats and get my thoughts organized before I get back to you. -- Someone else 22:37, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"The Sun version" is a British expression meaing "Give me just the basic facts dumbed down so a Sun reader could understand it." I'm sorry I had assumed you would get my drift, from our earleir conversation. Never mind., it was dumb of me to assume so, when you're not on this side of the pond.

Re: lumpers and splitters. I'm somewhere in the middle. I agree that there should biographical paged on each peer I'm definitely a splitter here. I thought the old format for i.e.old Earl of Derby format was horrible. The peerage pages need to serve three or perhaps four functions. Primarily, they need to disambiguate those individual who held the same title. The reader who ends up on the page for this reason expects a list, this is pretty clear. The rest is where the issue of lumping or splitting issue arises. There is obviously a demand from some readers who wish to how and why the title was passed from generation to generation. There are two ways to do this, either it is appended to the list as per Earl of Castlehaven with an expansion in the biographical articles or it is written in narrative form as per Duke of Hamilton. You obviously favour the former, but personally I favour the latter, because I'm sure that some readers will come to the page expecting to read a family history and I think adding the details of who was who's grandson etc.. makes the disambiguation list look untidy. I understand the issue of how much you can read before you get bored, but then I think it depends what you're looking for in the page. Finally some titles might need to be lumped together with others, as they have close connections to each other, this is why I put a header titled "Other titles which have been associated with the Duke of Somerset" on the Duke of Somerset page. The reader who clicks on a link which says Viscount Rochester and ends up on Duke of Somerset needs an explanation. Of course there are instances where a title was associated with one family and then onto another and it makes sense to create a new page in these titles (which is why some of the titles listed in the header are links). This is my reasoning anyway. Well I think perhaps it would be a good idea to start a Wiki-project, where those who have an interest such as user:Jeff, user:Deb, user:Jtdirl, user:Jlk7e can discuss this issue and we can agree on a format. What do you think? Mintguy 22:16, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi. I've kicked of a Wikiproject page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage, so discussion can be lumped together in one place :). Mintguy 10:10, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Oh! You judge so fast. All the articles about relatives of Harry Potters have been moved to Relatives of Harry Potter. I never delete things without making a copy somewhere on Wiki.

The article on Hedwig has been moved to the bottom of Harry Potter and I intend to merge it with the main article. But now I think it is better to group all articles on pets to Pets from Harry Potter.

-wshun 06:01, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, I stop for now. The number of characters from Harry Potter is still relatively few. But I will not do any reverting myself, I still believe it is a good idea. wshun 06:18, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I know that User:12.203.10.240 is listening. He takes our advices on The Magic School Bus and Jumpstart. But we definitely need a better policy on fictional characters. If Harry Potter becomes an animated series, the number of its characters will go explosively (like that in The Simpsons) and that's my biggest worry. - wshun 00:02, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't think he watch his talk page neither. But he didn't create new stubs as soon as we put all stuffs in the "mother page". I take it as a sign that he understands our concern (maybe on per article base through ^_^ ). -wshun 01:35, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, the biggest problem that would happen if Harry Potter became an animated series would be that then charactors featured in it(that wern't in the books) wouldn't be considered canon. So there would have to be a way to differensate between charactors that are canon and not canon.

That's the biggest problem for Wikipedia. The biggest problem would be the diminution of quality. -- Someone else 21:39, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Misc.

Please, Anonymous, take a look at the Galicia page and create a separate distribution page for the two Galicias. The information on the Austrian Galicia can't stay on that page. It is very confusing. I would do it but I don't know how. Portcult 13:50, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I think we should either go with "a composer of planet earth" or give his exact address and let readers decide for themselves. Alternatively, go with "Xengorian" to confuse everyone (this won't be very informative, but it will make me feel a bit better). I see Haydn is also in the list of contenders in that article - maybe I should wander over to his article and pre-emptively muddy the waters there as well... --Camembert

---

See Talk:Salad -- Tarquin