User talk:Astrotrain

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia.

It's always worth checking if an article already exists before writing a new one. I can see you put some effort into researching and writing Falkland Isles, but we already have articles at Falkland Islands and Falklands War which cover the subjects you were adressign in that page. I have made Falkland Isles a Wikipedia:Redirect to Falkland Islands. Don't worry, your edits at Falkland Isles are not lost, you czan see them in the history of the page at [1] (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Falkland_Isles&oldid=1203038). so if you want to modify either Falkland Islands or Falklands War you can use this page as a source. Mintguy 14:58 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to wikipedia.

Just one point may not yet be aware of, in creating titles royal styles (HRH, HSH etc) are not put in the link name. It is an easy mistake to make. The full rules on royal naming on wiki are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). lol FearÉIREANN 19:12, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hello Astrotrain! I see you've been doing articles on royalty. I have a good link to you: www.genealogia.sapo.pt
It contains a very complete online Gotha with information about EVERYBODY. It's in portuguese, but princesa is not really that different from princess :) I think you'll find it usefull. One small problem: is offline at weekends and evenings - very stupid thing i think. And i supposed you can also find a glossary: glossário de termos. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop

Why is it better to have Leo Blair as a separate article from Tony Blair. Does he have encyclopedic merit outside being his father's son? Pete 16:09, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

NB the material you originally wrote for the LB article was transferred to the personal life section of the TB article so nothing was lost - just a more cohesive article set gained. Pete 16:11, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just to let you know I reverted back to a Tony Blair redirect just now, pending any comments from you. Pete 10:26, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hiyas. I reverted Posh Spice Takes it Up the Arse to again redirect to Victoria Beckham. The information is all in her article, and I don't believe we need a seperate article on a single chant about her. See wikipedia:page size for some of the reasoning.

Note that the redirect to Victoria Beckham is itself listed on wikipedia:redirects for deletion, with some people feeling that, even as a redirect, the title is too offensive. You may wish to comment there. Martin 23:37, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nicely done merge. However, I've moved the main article back to HMS Glamorgan (D19). One reason for that is the MediaWiki table at the bottom of the page. It already points to the destroyer with the pennant number, and it is possible that another HMS Glamorgan will come along at some point. If so, then we can always undo the redirect and make it into a disambig page. However, the article with the pennant number will always remain appropriate for the County class ship whatever happens in the future. David Newton 22:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You should have done the SSN Spartan on the specific page. There has been more than one HMS Spartan through the years. I say again to you, please create pages using pennant number or, failing that, year of launching for ships. If there has been only one ship of that name, please redirect HMS Whatever to the specific page. David Newton 22:43, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again, I apologise for my inappropriate actions. My actions were intended well, as I was merely attempting to accurately display information that had been given to me by a friend and not trying to wreck anything. My unfamiliarity with conventions and, more seriously, the legal implications of my additions I very much regret. Calexico (Talk) 10:36, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes you made to the Queen Victoria article. I understand why you made them but there was clear agreement on a standard format to be used in all royal pages. That was not to use the format you produced but the format that was on the page and is elsewhere throughout royalty. That is the standard structure agreed after exhaustive debate, involving starting articles on royalty with name, surname and birth-death dates. No other format should be used unilaterally. It took a lot of hard effort by a lot of people to find an agreed structure. The last thing we need is a return to the mess of 10 different structures for referring to royalty that existed before, with some people determined to call the Prince of Wales Mr Charles Windsor, etc. As an encyclopaedia we need to have an agreed structure for biographies and on royalty we have, so please follow it. FearÉIREANN 20:10, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

George V of the United Kingdom

If you're going to delete large chunks of text in an article, it would be a good idea if you would explain on the Talk page, or at least on the edit summary, why you made the deletion. As it is, your deletions made the footnote numbering wrong. Please explain what you're doing. RickK 21:29, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

George III of the United Kingdom

Please do not make major deletions without at least a brief explanation. -- Emsworth 22:09, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agreed on the table, and have reinstated it. But I certainly think that his arms are relevant. The reader would note the removal of the French quartering, for example. So I must disagree with your assessment of my edits. -- Emsworth 22:28, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad we could resolve the problem amicably. -- Emsworth 23:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Princess Royal and other Royals

Recently, there was a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). The resulting rule suggested the following format:

• His Royal Highness The Prince A, Duke of X (A B C Windsor), styled HRH The Duke of X, is...

The current official style is to be included, so that the uninitiated or ignorant can know how to refer to the subject. Former styles, however, need not be included. Furthermore, one need not include the style for certain unambiguous individuals such as HRH Prince William of Wales. -- Emsworth 21:47, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a good idea to use HRH The Duke of X instead of HRH The Duke of X. -- Emsworth 21:56, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image:Prince William of Wales.jpg

I see you've just uploaded this image; could you provide information on its source and copyright status? In the mean-time I've tagged it with Template:Unverified.
Thanks.
James F. (talk) 22:40, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun

You converted this article to a REDIRECT to Big Mac without transferring the information therein across. There has been discussion about this on the talk page which did not result in agreement. I also see that you tried this conversion before and were reverted. Please discuss changes like this on the talk page rather than merely jumping in (are you the anoymous user who is featured on the talk page?). By all means be bold but be prepared to be reverted: you're not the only one :-) --Phil | Talk 12:12, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

2004 edits

What exactly was your point on the 2004 page? Indonesia and Cambodia not important enough for you? You do not seem like a vandal, but such deletions are unjustifiable, unless your world truly stops at the British shoreline. Ford 22:13, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

(Responding to User_talk:Ford#2004): I am more offended (and my sense of neutrality is offended) by your repeated exclusions of changes of government, including very significant changes of government, in parts of the world that you do not consider important, but most reasonable people do. Your language, and the suggestions of what are important enough, or would be important enough, to warrant inclusion under your standards, are, as I said, parochial. You have a narrow conception of what matters. I have read your comments on the 2004 page, and you are quite dismissive of the rest of the world, while unaware of the relative insignificance of things of your interest. Certainly Britain remains an important country, but not to the level that you rate it. The royal doings are trivial compared to actual changes of government. Your favoring of such business over matters of genuine import is baffling to me, and is the main reason that I tagged the article. But you can also be sure that I will keep the article tagged as long as there is so much as one use of a royal honorific. You may think the queen is majestic, but that is a point of view not shared by most (in the world, that is, not your corner of the world). — Ford 12:28, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Your accusation of anglophobia against me on the 2004 page were bizzare. If there were accounts of minor political protests or the minute details of leader's movements in any other country listed on the page I would have removed them too. Will anyone care in 1 years time that someone put a flour bomb on Blair? No, and nor would anyone care that a protestor performed a civilian arrest on John Howard, or attempted to give Bush a handshake when he visited parliament, or dressed up as a sheep and hugged Howard which is why these (Australian) events aren't listed on the page. I'm positive similar events could be listed for most countries in the world, the fact that they aren't doesn't reflect anti-Americanism or Anti-sematism, the fact that these British events are there does reflect a British bias in the article, though. Saying I'm Anglophobic because I deleted a number of British events (and a lot of others if you had actually cared to look through my numerous edits) is bizzare, it's just that there happens to be a number of trivial British events listed on that page. Psychobabble 01:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Prince Ernst August III of Hanover

An excellent reference for matters like this is this page (http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~canyon/prince.html) on the "Titular Dignity of Prince in the British Royal Family Since 1714". As far as I can tell (it's very complicated, and I may have missed something), as a great-great-grandson (as you rightly say, and not a great-grandson as the article claims) of King George III, he was not entitled to any British Royal style. The letters patent mentioned in the article state that "the eldest son of and the children thereafter to be born to Prince Ernst August of Hanover, then reigning Duke of Brunswick, was granted the title Prince of Great Britain and Ireland with the style "Highness" by Royal Warrant on 17 June 1914". This, however, doesn't appear to apply to him, only to his children. (In fact, it only applies to his eldest three children, because it was changed in 1917 and the others were born after that.) Thus, it seems that Ernst August III had no British Royal style, and his son Ernst August IV (along with his brother Georg and sister Frederika) was a HH Prince. The assumption of HRH Prince of Great Britain and Ireland by the Hanovers is invalid, and thus shouldn't be used in our articles on them. (The article seems to imply that the lack of condemnation by HM is an implicit acknowledgment of the style, which seems rather contrived.) Proteus (Talk) 12:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Optimus Prime (person)

There was no consensus to delete that page (some voted to keep, others to merge the info into Optimus Prime proper before deleting it). Summarily deleting it, repeatedly, despite the obvious fact that others saw some value in it, and making no effort to merge the information as others fairly suggested, or even to update the article you're redirecting to, to reflect the fact that you've deleted the "person" article, adds up to rather poor manners. Tverbeek 19:41, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you reading a different Wikipedia than I am, on drugs, or just on some kind of self-important power trip? The VfD did not support a summary deletion of the article as you claimed in your edit comment. The vote was pretty evenly split between "delete", "merge", and "keep". You're editing in bad faith. Tverbeek 00:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The consensus is tied" is nonsense talk; Either there's a consensus in which there's general agreement or willingness to go along, or there is no consensus, and there's a stalemate. That's what the VfD produced, which is why no action was taken. That is not an invitation for one provincial and self-centered individual to decide for the rest of Wikipedia what to do. Tell me: why do you have such a need to remove the article, when it's obvious that others want it to stay? Do you really want to get banned for editing in bad faith over this? I'm content to go along with whatever the majority wants... are you willing to, "Aristotrain"? Tverbeek 20:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you're going to make a redirect, you have a moral responsibility to do it properly: remove the disambig comment from the top of the target article, and honor the majority that also felt the material should be preserved. It's what I'd do in your shoes (and what I've done in similar situations). I'm adult enough to go along with consensus. Doing otherwise just because it suits you, and forcing others to clean up after your vandalism, is completely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Tverbeek 22:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Royal styles

I'd say using "Prince Charles" or similar is definitely inappropriate, but I think I'd use "HRH The Prince of Wales" rather than "The Prince of Wales", mainly because I'd use "HRH The Duke of Kent" or similar to distinguish royalty from people like The Duke of Norfolk (especially with people like HRH The Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, who not many people will have heard of, and so won't know are royal), and I think this should be extended to people who are obivously royals (like The Princess Royal and The Prince of Wales) for consistency's sake. I feel that writing out the full style, while obviously appropriate for the person's own article, is a bit too cumbersome when merely making a reference to someone. Proteus (Talk) 23:53, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Duchesses

The Duchess of Windsor was "Her Grace", but Sarah, Duchess of York, is not, as all honorific prefixes associated with peerages are lost by the wives of peers on divorce. Proteus (Talk) 15:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you know has been updated

And an article you created recently has made the line up and is now featured on the main page. Enjoy! -- Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)