This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome!
Hello, Tryde/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
CambridgeBayWeather
(Talk) 10:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
On 19-Mar, you blanked Baron Hervey. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre
When you are adding information to peerage pages, could you please not remove the actual date that the peerage was created and just leave the year like you have been doing. I have put most of these dates in and I don't see why you need to delete them? -- Berks105 13:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies - Baronetcy project 17:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This user is a member of Team Peerage and Baronetage. |
Hi Tryde, good work! However could you please in future if you move articles correct also the redirects (to avoid double or wrong redirects)? Thanks and Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 22:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ~~
Hello. I have access to Burke's which lists the present baron as the 12th (as does Cracroft's, which I admit is a bit of a carbon copy of Burke's anyway) but unfortunately I haven't got access to Cockayne's either. He's rightly listed with the 12th ordinal due to Anthony, Earl of Harold being called up the Lords in 1718, thus making him the 3rd baron (I assume you're familiar with writs of acceleration, so won't go into them). The Marchioness Grey was thus the 4th baroness and the Countess de Grey the 5th baroness and so on and so on. Interestingly, on Lord Harold's death in 1723, the barony passed back to his father, the Duke of Kent and wasn't inherited by Lord Harold's neice (later the Marchioness Grey) until the duke's own death in 1740 - due to the slight complexity of writs of acceleration combined with the even more complex nature of the terms of the barony's patent, this totally confuses me as to why it didn't just pass to the duke's eldest daughter, the Countess of Breadalbane and Holland (mother of Lady Grey). That aside, I believe we can definately count Lord Harold as the third baron simply by the fact that every other eldest son of peers that were called up and didn't succeeded to their father's higher peerage, have also been given an ordinal. Thanks, Craigy ( talk) 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The CP calls him the 3rd Baron (well, technically, it puts the numeral "III" next to his entry, and the numeral "IV" next to the Marchioness Grey's entry, and so on, since it doesn't use the same numbering system as most other works). However, there does seem to be some variation here: William Howard, Lord Howard of Effingham, eldest son of Charles Howard, 1st Earl of Nottingham, was summoned to Parliament as Baron Howard of Effingham and died childless in his father's lifetime, the Barony reverting to his father, and is not included in the numbering of the Barony of Howard of Effingham, whilst Oliver St John, 5th Baron St John of Bletso, eldest son of Oliver St John, 1st Earl of Bolingbroke, who was similarly summoned to Parliament as Baron St John of Bletso and died childless in his father's lifetime, the Barony reverting to his father, does seem to be included in the numbering of the Barony of St John of Bletso. Forced to choose (which of course we are), I'd be inclined to go with "12th" here, since my instinct says that the Howards are wrong and the St Johns right. Proteus (Talk) 20:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I based the edit on this [1] Alci12 11:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't check the details as yet but what you've added looks great. One thing though, if you could try to break the text up with paragraphs it would make it much easier for readers. Alci12 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe there's an adopted child somewhere, which might be him (which, of course, means that he isn't an heir). Proteus (Talk) 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tryde, I've seen that you corrected some parliament succession boxes, I had added. It might be interesting for you that there is a special style for them which you can see at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 19:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC) ~~
Ok thanks for that, I'm not sure why I hadn't added the brother before, perhaps I previewed the change but never sent it. Alci12 12:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
"On Lord Findlater’s death they held the the earldom jointly."
Your source for this is? It's not uncommon in Scotland pre c18 for the husbands of female peers to be granted the style and title for life as though they held the title but that's not in any sense sharing it. Alci12 22:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Sadly unless you buy updated versions of several references works (as not all are anyway accurate even when up to date) each year mistakes will happen. Re-searching quickly I couldn't find a death notice for Christopher Paul Mansel Campbell etc which probably explains why he slipped though the cracks as I usually catch missing hard copy entries that way. The hp will as you say be his eldest son - who I can't quickly find listed with children. Good catch please add the hp title page Alci12 11:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tryde, may I ask you to put a short notice on the article's talkpage to give your reasons for removing so much text? I think at such big interventions the behaviour should be explained so that people (especially these who had added the texts) can comprehend it. Greetings and thanks ~~ Phoe talk 11:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC) ~~
re. JELLICOE: Hi Tryde, why do you keep removing the picture of Tidcombe? Rodolph 13:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"Hello. You have added that Hon. Benjamin Andrew Weir (b. 1997) is the Heir Apparent to the barony of Inverforth. What is your source for this? According to my own notes (taken from Who's Who) the present baron has only one daughter and the heir presumptive is his uncle Hon. John Vincent Weir (b. 1935)."
I agree with you, I was overhasty and your reason is comprehensible, so I have arranged it. By the way you can let do such moves on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 11:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
Heja Tryde, I have a tiny request. Could you also indicate the dates, if you add succession boxes for titles or baronetcies? Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
Hi, I'll just explain my rationale, if that helps. The problem I have with the bolding is that I assume you're using it for emphasis (to make the grantee stand out), but in WP articles it's only supposed to be used for the subject of the article, which in the case of these articles is the peerage itself (and by association all the other peerages held with it, because most of the time they redirect there and it's essentially a shared article named after the most appropriate one). The people who held them have their own articles, and are obviously appropriately bolded at the beginning of them, so I don't think it's appropriate to bold them in the peerage article. I agree that the names need emphasising, which I why I normally link them (even though they're in the lists anyway), because links stand out. Re the numbers, "the 2nd Earl" is essentially a contraction of "the 2nd Earl of Somewhere" (with the title itself left out because it's cumbersome to keep repeating it), and it's definitely our style to write the latter in articles, and so I feel it's inconsistent to change the formatting when it's shortened. But I definitely agree with your last point – there are far more important things to be worrying about. Proteus (Talk) 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The additional infois great but the page is now very hard to read dont you think? - Kittybrewster 21:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I am bipartite: on one side I find it absolutely sensible with titles who have a large number of incumbents to have subcategories, which provide a better subdivision. On the other side subcategories are of course totally unnecessary, if a title was only created for one subject or was inherited by a few. Also in these cases, in which a title has different creations in different peerages, we should rather use the old system, since otherwise titleholders would sometimes appear in categories they don't belong into. By the way if you did not know it yet, discussions about categories can be started on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 20:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC) ~~
PS: I have just seen your question on Kitty's talkpage. The wikisoftware will change automatically all # signs to numbers, if they appear at the beginning of a line (It is the same principle as in the case of the * signs). The numbers are ongoing and are always as many as # signs. Taken briefly to the point: if you delete an entry, the other entries are amended automatically. ~~ Phoe talk 20:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC) ~~
Now after you have said it, I am a little bit insecure. The Britannica, the ODNB, the NPG, JSTOR as well as the Peerage, the Telegraph and the LG have him as Lewis Harcourt, so it is possible, that Debrett (I presume it is your source) is wrong? ~~ Phoe talk 20:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC) ~~
Good show! — Tamfang 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You ask why give UK title to younger branch of the Hill family?
I can't give you the certain answer but I can give you the likely answer. It's not uncommon in the c17-19 for recently extinct peerages (of great history, prestige or power and influence) to be re-conferred upon the closest heir male/female of the last holder. You see many changes of names to that of the father in law either as a requirement of Name and Arms clauses in wills (to inherit land) or because that name is more prestigious or occasionally because it seems a clear attempt to aid a bid to get a title re-granted.
As the estates of the Lords Sandys fell to a female and she was a descendant of peers paternally and maternally it looks probable that it was felt proper to keep the title alive. If the title had been created with the normal remainder it would have been subsumed within the marquisate which would have defeated the purpose. (I note the 3rd baron did change the name to Sandys but that line died out.) After 200 years the title is anyway soon returning to the main line
Btw the barony is an oddone:
The King has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of the Kingdom of Great Britain unto the Right Honourable Samuel Sandys, Esq; by the Name, Style and Title of Lord Sandys, Baron of Ombersley in the County of Worcester. [2] Alci12 14:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Tryde. Please be aware that it is highly frowned upon to copy and paste contents from one page to another (the subsequent article history gives unfair credit to the author of the move, rather than the author(s) of the content), as you did today regarding Earl of Carrick. I have reverted your move and created a regular dab page. It is my view that the ancient Scottish earl is clearly primary usage. If you disagree, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves to request a move vote. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you could help with my list of missing topics related to nobility and royalty ? I do not know how many of these would be just worthy of redirects and the like . - Skysmith 09:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Tryde, I see you have added substantially to the Earl of Portarlington entry. Firstly my thanks, it was very interesting. Secondly, you say at the end that the incumbent Earl lives in Australia. This is of interest to me since I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to find him. May I ask where you have found this information and if you have any further contact details? My intentions aren't malicious I assure you. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Markopopulous 12:15, 29 May 2007
Thanks for the reply. I've discovered that the Earl actually lives in Scotland, not Australia as you have in the article. It was his (now deceased) brother who lived there.
A tag has been placed on Prescott Baronets, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SamBC 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I was interested to see that you changed Stephenson's date of death. I assume you have a reliable source for this, and would be interested to know what it is, so that we can determine which is more likely to be accurate. The date I used is the one from Stenton and Lees, who are generally pretty reliable on these things, but not infallible. Warofdreams talk 18:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
An updated "succession" list should be on the website shortly; however, as the list runs from the beginning of 2004, the 2003 successions will not appear.
Please would you email me direct.
- Kittybrewster (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, yes, that was the case. He was, after all, heir apparent to the Earldom of Vane, and heirs apparent are entitled to courtesy titles. Due to the special remainder, I suspect this (two brothers both holding courtesy peerages simultaneously) probably was indeed a unique event in the history of the Peerage — at any rate I can't think of another example. Proteus (Talk) 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
When writing of Baronets should the name of the Baronecy in question not be included ?. For example Sir Robert Munro, 6th Baronet of Foulis. It helps to identify which baronecy. Thanks. Psycotics1454 20:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've removed the link to the Tritton Baronets from Norwood (UK Parliament constituency). Does that mean we can expect to see an extry for Sir Ernest Tritton, 1st Baronet? in anticipation, Ephebi 17:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
When you redirected that page you created a redirect loop from that page to the Arthur Baronets pages and back again, which I have corrected. Just a heads up mate The Sanctuary Sparrow 06:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I consider it polite to discuss redirects before executing them. -- Counter-revolutionary 17:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I am afraid I don't understand the rationale for burying the entire details of a Baronet, under the heading of a Baron with a different name (even though related)? Motmit 20:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I notice you've been redirecting ministry articles (e.g. Second Peel ministry) into government articles ( Conservative Government 1841-1846). I don't think this is a good idea. Ministries are subsets of governments--in some cases more than one ministry may come out of the same government ( Third Derby ministry and First Disraeli ministry from Conservative Government 1866-1868, for example). It's been my intention for the ministry articles to actually discuss the ministry, while the government articles provide an exhausting listing of all members of the government--under-secretaries, members of the household, and so on. Maybe this is unnecessary, but there should be some discussion of the merits first. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I just discovered that Mount Egmont on New Zealand was named after ones of these earls by Cook, and not, as I'd expected, after Lamoral, Count of Egmont or his family by Abel Tasman who sailed by this very mountain a century and a half before and who, still during the 80-year war, had the nation-building heroics of the count still in mind. Surprising. You'll notice that the earlage isn't even mentioned yet on the Egmont disambiguation site. As you seem to know a lot about this family, could you add to the history how John Perceval or anyone else chose the name "Egmont"? He may have picked it up from the count, so that the mountain is named, via, via, after him after all. Thanks. Afasmit 00:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You have recently moved two articles I have worked on ( Donald Macmaster and Ion Hamilton Benn) to Sir Donald Macmaster, 1st Baronet and Sir Ion Hamilton Benn, 1st Baronet. Whilst I have no specific objection, I do wonder why you have done this, since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) still specifies:
Since we have no other articles on people with these names I can see no reason why disambiguation should be necessary. -- Necrothesp 09:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Lodge, in his 1789 Peerage of Ireland, calls Sir Edmund Butler "later Earl of Carrick" in the first half of the 14th century. But in your article on Irish Earls of Carrick you have them commencing much later. I am not saying you are wrong, but it seems unlikely Lodge is wrong. Where do you think the discrepancy lies? Regards, David Lauder 09:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Claud Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
ZacBowling
talk 13:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted your changes at Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency). Please do not remove information from the article. Chrisieboy ( talk) 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Robert Ward (MP), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Robert Ward (MP) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Robert Ward (MP), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot 11:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Tyrde, I retracted the tag, as you requested, because it was fairly obviously contrary to the Wiki policy in the sentence you quoted. I'm more interested in adding information to Wiki than debating endlessly about it, however this might be one of the situations where I chose to take a stand, so to avoid being overlooked in the Robert Ward article talk, here's a copy of those comments:
I wonder why articles like this should be in Wikipedia.
1) If it wasn't that this person was elected to an office, nothing in the article reported about them would be significant enough to write about. I.e., this page would be immediately deleted if Robert Ward hadn't held office.
2) The authors of such Wiki articles are plainly copying (in some sentences practically verbatim) from sources which are largely almanacs, such as Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page and www.thepeerage.com.
3) The Wiki article adds no new information. The authors of the page don't evidence knowledge of the background of the politician. There's no presentation of the history events which surrounds his office.
4) Editing such articles, and checking them for factual content places a burden on Wiki editors. There should be some commensurate value for the effort. Here, it's not clear what that might be. I've been a Webmaster for a major company, in charge of the content. It would not be surprising if such an article such as this got no hits at all in a year — except perhaps those doing maintenance or users coming by accident.
These articles about politicians could be important, but now they tend to lack even the content that a university student of history would put in a book report.
Regards
24.6.67.7 12:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason that Thomas Brunton's article has been redirected? Is there a particular reason, such as based on rank, nobility, etc., that Brunton should be directed and folks like Isaac Newton, Edward Frankland, and Humphry Davy should not? I don't know. -- Astrochemist ( talk) 03:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I recently moved a few pages to their undisambiguated, common names, as per the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names #4, which states "For the article title, this format [i.e. Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet] should only be used when disambiguation is necessary". I noticed that you later moved them back, citing "Proper name". Have I overlooked an alternative policy, or are some of these names ambiguous? I tried to avoid moving any articles which seemed to have names requiring disambiguation. Warofdreams talk 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Why the removal of Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom from Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
As this person was a baronet and then 12 years later a baron, why does he not get both categories "Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom" and "Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom"? It seems logical to me, and neither seems to be a subset of the other, but you have deleted the baronet category. I'm puzzled. PamD ( talk) 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Kbthompson has started a discussion at WT:WikiProject London, your input there would be appreciated. Xn4 19:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Your views are sought at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Peers_who_were_Baronets - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
GB or Ireland? - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As you have now resumed editing Wikipedia and moving pages, can I draw your attention to my query at #Page moves and disambiguation above and request your comments. Warofdreams talk 01:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explian why you are removing the abbreviation "Bt" and "4th Bt" after people's names? This is useful for identifiying people's status in society and in the case of the Packingtons for showing that there was a succession of people with the same name, who successively held a county seat. It is also useful for identifying (briefly) titles to which MPs subsequently succeeded. This is purely destructive work, which I will be reverting later unless you can give a good reason for notding so. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it was a wise move on your part to remove a whole section of this article? Tryde ( talk) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Tryde.
User:Otolemur crassicaudatus is a very square-headed type of guy, who's caused trouble for a lot of editors, you're not the only one. He deleted 40 % of an article I created, instead of just posting a message to me (as one of the most active editors on the article) or a citation-needed-tag on the article itself. I had a lengthy exchange of arguments with him. He didn't get it. I don't know if he is stupid, or if he just pretends to be.
Maybe we should scrutinize his articles (the ones he says he has created), and see if we can find any unsourced material? We'll know what to do with that, don't we?
LarRan ( talk) 15:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
He seems a little trigger-happy, that's for sure. He's probably right about the inline citations, but I'm doing mass article creations on one subject, and I plan to tidy up things at the end. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. There was already an article for this person incorrectly located at Sir John Packington. I suggest we move this article to John Pakington (d. 1625) and incorporate your information into it (it's also in dire need of a cleanup, he wasn't a baronet for a start and it's hardly likely that he received the translation of a French treatise in 1640 as he died in 1625). Your article should then be made into a redirect. I think we should also create a disambiguation page of "John Pakington". Please let me know your thoughts (you can answer here if you like). Regards, Tryde ( talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please would you use Rayment-b rather than [: http://www.leighrayment.com/ Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page] - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is muddled with Baron Carnock. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Instead of adding every Scottish/English duke to the category "Dukes of the peerage of..." Why not just add the sub-categories, "Dukes of..."? So, instead of Prince Charles being in the category Dukes of the peerage of Scotland he would be in the category Dukes of Rothesay, which would be a sub-category of Dukes of the peerage of Scotland. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I was very much in favour of your recent practice of deleting stub articles about non-notable Baronets and transferring the info to the main body of the Baronetcy article under the individuals headings. You now appear to have departed from that logical method and are now producing long introductions (eg Broughton Baronets) which include info relevant to the individuals named in the succession list. Your current method seems to me to create overlong and cumbersome introductions which can be confusing. The timeline appears in the list, but the events are in the intro making the whole less easy to follow. My main grouse is however that the addition of further information into the article is now almost impossible without adding confusion to the already over burdened intro. Could I persuade you to revert to your earlier practice, thus leaving me space to add my bits and pieces in a manner helpful to the reader. Many thanks Ordyg ( talk) 18:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome!
Hello, Tryde/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
CambridgeBayWeather
(Talk) 10:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
On 19-Mar, you blanked Baron Hervey. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre
When you are adding information to peerage pages, could you please not remove the actual date that the peerage was created and just leave the year like you have been doing. I have put most of these dates in and I don't see why you need to delete them? -- Berks105 13:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies - Baronetcy project 17:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This user is a member of Team Peerage and Baronetage. |
Hi Tryde, good work! However could you please in future if you move articles correct also the redirects (to avoid double or wrong redirects)? Thanks and Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 22:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ~~
Hello. I have access to Burke's which lists the present baron as the 12th (as does Cracroft's, which I admit is a bit of a carbon copy of Burke's anyway) but unfortunately I haven't got access to Cockayne's either. He's rightly listed with the 12th ordinal due to Anthony, Earl of Harold being called up the Lords in 1718, thus making him the 3rd baron (I assume you're familiar with writs of acceleration, so won't go into them). The Marchioness Grey was thus the 4th baroness and the Countess de Grey the 5th baroness and so on and so on. Interestingly, on Lord Harold's death in 1723, the barony passed back to his father, the Duke of Kent and wasn't inherited by Lord Harold's neice (later the Marchioness Grey) until the duke's own death in 1740 - due to the slight complexity of writs of acceleration combined with the even more complex nature of the terms of the barony's patent, this totally confuses me as to why it didn't just pass to the duke's eldest daughter, the Countess of Breadalbane and Holland (mother of Lady Grey). That aside, I believe we can definately count Lord Harold as the third baron simply by the fact that every other eldest son of peers that were called up and didn't succeeded to their father's higher peerage, have also been given an ordinal. Thanks, Craigy ( talk) 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The CP calls him the 3rd Baron (well, technically, it puts the numeral "III" next to his entry, and the numeral "IV" next to the Marchioness Grey's entry, and so on, since it doesn't use the same numbering system as most other works). However, there does seem to be some variation here: William Howard, Lord Howard of Effingham, eldest son of Charles Howard, 1st Earl of Nottingham, was summoned to Parliament as Baron Howard of Effingham and died childless in his father's lifetime, the Barony reverting to his father, and is not included in the numbering of the Barony of Howard of Effingham, whilst Oliver St John, 5th Baron St John of Bletso, eldest son of Oliver St John, 1st Earl of Bolingbroke, who was similarly summoned to Parliament as Baron St John of Bletso and died childless in his father's lifetime, the Barony reverting to his father, does seem to be included in the numbering of the Barony of St John of Bletso. Forced to choose (which of course we are), I'd be inclined to go with "12th" here, since my instinct says that the Howards are wrong and the St Johns right. Proteus (Talk) 20:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I based the edit on this [1] Alci12 11:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't check the details as yet but what you've added looks great. One thing though, if you could try to break the text up with paragraphs it would make it much easier for readers. Alci12 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe there's an adopted child somewhere, which might be him (which, of course, means that he isn't an heir). Proteus (Talk) 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tryde, I've seen that you corrected some parliament succession boxes, I had added. It might be interesting for you that there is a special style for them which you can see at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 19:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC) ~~
Ok thanks for that, I'm not sure why I hadn't added the brother before, perhaps I previewed the change but never sent it. Alci12 12:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
"On Lord Findlater’s death they held the the earldom jointly."
Your source for this is? It's not uncommon in Scotland pre c18 for the husbands of female peers to be granted the style and title for life as though they held the title but that's not in any sense sharing it. Alci12 22:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Sadly unless you buy updated versions of several references works (as not all are anyway accurate even when up to date) each year mistakes will happen. Re-searching quickly I couldn't find a death notice for Christopher Paul Mansel Campbell etc which probably explains why he slipped though the cracks as I usually catch missing hard copy entries that way. The hp will as you say be his eldest son - who I can't quickly find listed with children. Good catch please add the hp title page Alci12 11:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tryde, may I ask you to put a short notice on the article's talkpage to give your reasons for removing so much text? I think at such big interventions the behaviour should be explained so that people (especially these who had added the texts) can comprehend it. Greetings and thanks ~~ Phoe talk 11:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC) ~~
re. JELLICOE: Hi Tryde, why do you keep removing the picture of Tidcombe? Rodolph 13:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"Hello. You have added that Hon. Benjamin Andrew Weir (b. 1997) is the Heir Apparent to the barony of Inverforth. What is your source for this? According to my own notes (taken from Who's Who) the present baron has only one daughter and the heir presumptive is his uncle Hon. John Vincent Weir (b. 1935)."
I agree with you, I was overhasty and your reason is comprehensible, so I have arranged it. By the way you can let do such moves on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 11:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
Heja Tryde, I have a tiny request. Could you also indicate the dates, if you add succession boxes for titles or baronetcies? Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
Hi, I'll just explain my rationale, if that helps. The problem I have with the bolding is that I assume you're using it for emphasis (to make the grantee stand out), but in WP articles it's only supposed to be used for the subject of the article, which in the case of these articles is the peerage itself (and by association all the other peerages held with it, because most of the time they redirect there and it's essentially a shared article named after the most appropriate one). The people who held them have their own articles, and are obviously appropriately bolded at the beginning of them, so I don't think it's appropriate to bold them in the peerage article. I agree that the names need emphasising, which I why I normally link them (even though they're in the lists anyway), because links stand out. Re the numbers, "the 2nd Earl" is essentially a contraction of "the 2nd Earl of Somewhere" (with the title itself left out because it's cumbersome to keep repeating it), and it's definitely our style to write the latter in articles, and so I feel it's inconsistent to change the formatting when it's shortened. But I definitely agree with your last point – there are far more important things to be worrying about. Proteus (Talk) 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The additional infois great but the page is now very hard to read dont you think? - Kittybrewster 21:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I am bipartite: on one side I find it absolutely sensible with titles who have a large number of incumbents to have subcategories, which provide a better subdivision. On the other side subcategories are of course totally unnecessary, if a title was only created for one subject or was inherited by a few. Also in these cases, in which a title has different creations in different peerages, we should rather use the old system, since otherwise titleholders would sometimes appear in categories they don't belong into. By the way if you did not know it yet, discussions about categories can be started on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 20:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC) ~~
PS: I have just seen your question on Kitty's talkpage. The wikisoftware will change automatically all # signs to numbers, if they appear at the beginning of a line (It is the same principle as in the case of the * signs). The numbers are ongoing and are always as many as # signs. Taken briefly to the point: if you delete an entry, the other entries are amended automatically. ~~ Phoe talk 20:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC) ~~
Now after you have said it, I am a little bit insecure. The Britannica, the ODNB, the NPG, JSTOR as well as the Peerage, the Telegraph and the LG have him as Lewis Harcourt, so it is possible, that Debrett (I presume it is your source) is wrong? ~~ Phoe talk 20:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC) ~~
Good show! — Tamfang 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You ask why give UK title to younger branch of the Hill family?
I can't give you the certain answer but I can give you the likely answer. It's not uncommon in the c17-19 for recently extinct peerages (of great history, prestige or power and influence) to be re-conferred upon the closest heir male/female of the last holder. You see many changes of names to that of the father in law either as a requirement of Name and Arms clauses in wills (to inherit land) or because that name is more prestigious or occasionally because it seems a clear attempt to aid a bid to get a title re-granted.
As the estates of the Lords Sandys fell to a female and she was a descendant of peers paternally and maternally it looks probable that it was felt proper to keep the title alive. If the title had been created with the normal remainder it would have been subsumed within the marquisate which would have defeated the purpose. (I note the 3rd baron did change the name to Sandys but that line died out.) After 200 years the title is anyway soon returning to the main line
Btw the barony is an oddone:
The King has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of the Kingdom of Great Britain unto the Right Honourable Samuel Sandys, Esq; by the Name, Style and Title of Lord Sandys, Baron of Ombersley in the County of Worcester. [2] Alci12 14:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Tryde. Please be aware that it is highly frowned upon to copy and paste contents from one page to another (the subsequent article history gives unfair credit to the author of the move, rather than the author(s) of the content), as you did today regarding Earl of Carrick. I have reverted your move and created a regular dab page. It is my view that the ancient Scottish earl is clearly primary usage. If you disagree, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves to request a move vote. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you could help with my list of missing topics related to nobility and royalty ? I do not know how many of these would be just worthy of redirects and the like . - Skysmith 09:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Tryde, I see you have added substantially to the Earl of Portarlington entry. Firstly my thanks, it was very interesting. Secondly, you say at the end that the incumbent Earl lives in Australia. This is of interest to me since I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to find him. May I ask where you have found this information and if you have any further contact details? My intentions aren't malicious I assure you. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Markopopulous 12:15, 29 May 2007
Thanks for the reply. I've discovered that the Earl actually lives in Scotland, not Australia as you have in the article. It was his (now deceased) brother who lived there.
A tag has been placed on Prescott Baronets, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SamBC 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I was interested to see that you changed Stephenson's date of death. I assume you have a reliable source for this, and would be interested to know what it is, so that we can determine which is more likely to be accurate. The date I used is the one from Stenton and Lees, who are generally pretty reliable on these things, but not infallible. Warofdreams talk 18:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
An updated "succession" list should be on the website shortly; however, as the list runs from the beginning of 2004, the 2003 successions will not appear.
Please would you email me direct.
- Kittybrewster (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, yes, that was the case. He was, after all, heir apparent to the Earldom of Vane, and heirs apparent are entitled to courtesy titles. Due to the special remainder, I suspect this (two brothers both holding courtesy peerages simultaneously) probably was indeed a unique event in the history of the Peerage — at any rate I can't think of another example. Proteus (Talk) 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
When writing of Baronets should the name of the Baronecy in question not be included ?. For example Sir Robert Munro, 6th Baronet of Foulis. It helps to identify which baronecy. Thanks. Psycotics1454 20:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've removed the link to the Tritton Baronets from Norwood (UK Parliament constituency). Does that mean we can expect to see an extry for Sir Ernest Tritton, 1st Baronet? in anticipation, Ephebi 17:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
When you redirected that page you created a redirect loop from that page to the Arthur Baronets pages and back again, which I have corrected. Just a heads up mate The Sanctuary Sparrow 06:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I consider it polite to discuss redirects before executing them. -- Counter-revolutionary 17:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I am afraid I don't understand the rationale for burying the entire details of a Baronet, under the heading of a Baron with a different name (even though related)? Motmit 20:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I notice you've been redirecting ministry articles (e.g. Second Peel ministry) into government articles ( Conservative Government 1841-1846). I don't think this is a good idea. Ministries are subsets of governments--in some cases more than one ministry may come out of the same government ( Third Derby ministry and First Disraeli ministry from Conservative Government 1866-1868, for example). It's been my intention for the ministry articles to actually discuss the ministry, while the government articles provide an exhausting listing of all members of the government--under-secretaries, members of the household, and so on. Maybe this is unnecessary, but there should be some discussion of the merits first. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I just discovered that Mount Egmont on New Zealand was named after ones of these earls by Cook, and not, as I'd expected, after Lamoral, Count of Egmont or his family by Abel Tasman who sailed by this very mountain a century and a half before and who, still during the 80-year war, had the nation-building heroics of the count still in mind. Surprising. You'll notice that the earlage isn't even mentioned yet on the Egmont disambiguation site. As you seem to know a lot about this family, could you add to the history how John Perceval or anyone else chose the name "Egmont"? He may have picked it up from the count, so that the mountain is named, via, via, after him after all. Thanks. Afasmit 00:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You have recently moved two articles I have worked on ( Donald Macmaster and Ion Hamilton Benn) to Sir Donald Macmaster, 1st Baronet and Sir Ion Hamilton Benn, 1st Baronet. Whilst I have no specific objection, I do wonder why you have done this, since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) still specifies:
Since we have no other articles on people with these names I can see no reason why disambiguation should be necessary. -- Necrothesp 09:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Lodge, in his 1789 Peerage of Ireland, calls Sir Edmund Butler "later Earl of Carrick" in the first half of the 14th century. But in your article on Irish Earls of Carrick you have them commencing much later. I am not saying you are wrong, but it seems unlikely Lodge is wrong. Where do you think the discrepancy lies? Regards, David Lauder 09:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Claud Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
ZacBowling
talk 13:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted your changes at Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency). Please do not remove information from the article. Chrisieboy ( talk) 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Robert Ward (MP), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Robert Ward (MP) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Robert Ward (MP), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot 11:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Tyrde, I retracted the tag, as you requested, because it was fairly obviously contrary to the Wiki policy in the sentence you quoted. I'm more interested in adding information to Wiki than debating endlessly about it, however this might be one of the situations where I chose to take a stand, so to avoid being overlooked in the Robert Ward article talk, here's a copy of those comments:
I wonder why articles like this should be in Wikipedia.
1) If it wasn't that this person was elected to an office, nothing in the article reported about them would be significant enough to write about. I.e., this page would be immediately deleted if Robert Ward hadn't held office.
2) The authors of such Wiki articles are plainly copying (in some sentences practically verbatim) from sources which are largely almanacs, such as Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page and www.thepeerage.com.
3) The Wiki article adds no new information. The authors of the page don't evidence knowledge of the background of the politician. There's no presentation of the history events which surrounds his office.
4) Editing such articles, and checking them for factual content places a burden on Wiki editors. There should be some commensurate value for the effort. Here, it's not clear what that might be. I've been a Webmaster for a major company, in charge of the content. It would not be surprising if such an article such as this got no hits at all in a year — except perhaps those doing maintenance or users coming by accident.
These articles about politicians could be important, but now they tend to lack even the content that a university student of history would put in a book report.
Regards
24.6.67.7 12:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason that Thomas Brunton's article has been redirected? Is there a particular reason, such as based on rank, nobility, etc., that Brunton should be directed and folks like Isaac Newton, Edward Frankland, and Humphry Davy should not? I don't know. -- Astrochemist ( talk) 03:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I recently moved a few pages to their undisambiguated, common names, as per the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names #4, which states "For the article title, this format [i.e. Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet] should only be used when disambiguation is necessary". I noticed that you later moved them back, citing "Proper name". Have I overlooked an alternative policy, or are some of these names ambiguous? I tried to avoid moving any articles which seemed to have names requiring disambiguation. Warofdreams talk 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Why the removal of Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom from Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
As this person was a baronet and then 12 years later a baron, why does he not get both categories "Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom" and "Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom"? It seems logical to me, and neither seems to be a subset of the other, but you have deleted the baronet category. I'm puzzled. PamD ( talk) 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Kbthompson has started a discussion at WT:WikiProject London, your input there would be appreciated. Xn4 19:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Your views are sought at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Peers_who_were_Baronets - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
GB or Ireland? - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As you have now resumed editing Wikipedia and moving pages, can I draw your attention to my query at #Page moves and disambiguation above and request your comments. Warofdreams talk 01:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explian why you are removing the abbreviation "Bt" and "4th Bt" after people's names? This is useful for identifiying people's status in society and in the case of the Packingtons for showing that there was a succession of people with the same name, who successively held a county seat. It is also useful for identifying (briefly) titles to which MPs subsequently succeeded. This is purely destructive work, which I will be reverting later unless you can give a good reason for notding so. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it was a wise move on your part to remove a whole section of this article? Tryde ( talk) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Tryde.
User:Otolemur crassicaudatus is a very square-headed type of guy, who's caused trouble for a lot of editors, you're not the only one. He deleted 40 % of an article I created, instead of just posting a message to me (as one of the most active editors on the article) or a citation-needed-tag on the article itself. I had a lengthy exchange of arguments with him. He didn't get it. I don't know if he is stupid, or if he just pretends to be.
Maybe we should scrutinize his articles (the ones he says he has created), and see if we can find any unsourced material? We'll know what to do with that, don't we?
LarRan ( talk) 15:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
He seems a little trigger-happy, that's for sure. He's probably right about the inline citations, but I'm doing mass article creations on one subject, and I plan to tidy up things at the end. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. There was already an article for this person incorrectly located at Sir John Packington. I suggest we move this article to John Pakington (d. 1625) and incorporate your information into it (it's also in dire need of a cleanup, he wasn't a baronet for a start and it's hardly likely that he received the translation of a French treatise in 1640 as he died in 1625). Your article should then be made into a redirect. I think we should also create a disambiguation page of "John Pakington". Please let me know your thoughts (you can answer here if you like). Regards, Tryde ( talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please would you use Rayment-b rather than [: http://www.leighrayment.com/ Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page] - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is muddled with Baron Carnock. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Instead of adding every Scottish/English duke to the category "Dukes of the peerage of..." Why not just add the sub-categories, "Dukes of..."? So, instead of Prince Charles being in the category Dukes of the peerage of Scotland he would be in the category Dukes of Rothesay, which would be a sub-category of Dukes of the peerage of Scotland. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I was very much in favour of your recent practice of deleting stub articles about non-notable Baronets and transferring the info to the main body of the Baronetcy article under the individuals headings. You now appear to have departed from that logical method and are now producing long introductions (eg Broughton Baronets) which include info relevant to the individuals named in the succession list. Your current method seems to me to create overlong and cumbersome introductions which can be confusing. The timeline appears in the list, but the events are in the intro making the whole less easy to follow. My main grouse is however that the addition of further information into the article is now almost impossible without adding confusion to the already over burdened intro. Could I persuade you to revert to your earlier practice, thus leaving me space to add my bits and pieces in a manner helpful to the reader. Many thanks Ordyg ( talk) 18:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |