User:Phoe/Archive/2009

Kittybrewster ☎ 16:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto! Choess (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I could not help noticing that the introduction line of your article differs from the title. The intro states Sir John Delavel, 5th baronet rather than 3rd as in the title. I have no idea which is the right one - could you please check and amend. Many thanks. Gilo1969 (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• No problem, I put 'in' Bath as to me that reads better than 'at Bath'. However it's not that important. I have now created a page for Gillingham, Norfolk. Regards Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Phoe, because the article was put in cancellation? In Italy, has been very quietly the story.--ABC Cinema (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please would you add a source. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think where you add a heraldic box it would be great if you were also to addd <ref<source<Burke's or whatever. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming_an_administrator. You would be good. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this would benefit from your kind attention. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a cross between an article and a category. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (and sorry for the late reply). Welcome back to you too! I will try to keep my edits at a reasonable level, there are after all more important things than Wikipedia... Tryde (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Phoe. The infobox Template:Infobox Baronetage which you have added to Verney Baronets does not specify which baronetage it emblazons. Its poisition on the page does not really give any clue, and even if it did the position may vary between different browsers. Could some sort of name parameter be included in the infobox? Best wishes. Oosoom ^Talk 12:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Heja, I have added a parameter to the template and have also adjusted the articles in question. Thanks for the suggestion. Greetings

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A worthwhile improvement:) Oosoom ^Talk 14:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to see additions arising on Irish constituencies. However I would comment that in UK/British articles the "alongside" field has consistently been unusued, probably because it sounds American. Personally, I paste in the following template: {{s-bef|before= <br> }} {{s-ttl|title= [[Member of Parliament|MP]] for [[ (UK Parliament constituency)| ]] |years= with <br><small> <br> </small>}} {{s-aft|after= <br> }} This seems to work well to avoid the need to type out all the common form material. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right: the with should part of the title. The best solution would be if we could get the succession box template altered so that there was a "with" field. I think I requested this but nothing has been done. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Phoe:

Thanks for your advice on date formats. I have read the Wiki page on this, and now understand the correct formats to use. All the best, Bigweeboy

Hello, thank you for your notes. My view is that wikipedia is about references, not about the truth (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). I feel very uneasy about wikipedians running in to chose a successor to titles. I do not think wekipedia is an authority to a succession, regardless of how clear cut (even in cases of father son). If reliable third party references can be given, then the mater should be noted according. If not, terms like vacant seem appropriate. I will refer to my source and place a note that references can, as yet, not properly establish a successor. Please also note that the "reference" I deleted in the various articles was terrible: see, a pointer to a forum that in turn referred to wiki. Please also note that we are dealing with living people and I think the greatest of caution should be given. Succession, in my view, is often not all that clear cut, one should advance with caution; third party references all the way. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC). Post scriptum: The source of the information at the peerage.com is an email; this in my judgement does not reach the standard of wikipedia. I have emailed the address for information on their source. Yours, CB

Hi, thank for you comments. However, I've thought about this issue before and concluded that the current naming system is the best, because it is so simple, coherent and yet unambiguous way of naming constituencies. As far as I know, it is also officially the most proper way to name them. That's why I've written the word "Constituency" with Capital initial letter, and not in parenthesis. In general usage, the word "constituency" is usually left out, but that creates sort of ambiguity as many constituencies are named after their respective towns or districts. Also, there seems to be wide range of variation how constituencies and electoral districts of different countries are named on Wikipedia (e.g. Singapore, New South Wales, Namibia, United States, Zimbabwe). Julius Sahara (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept your rebuke. I have added the template you provided to my WP templates file (for standard from text to copy inro articles). Peterkingiron (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I use Internet Explorer, so that your add on will not help. I am also mystifed as to what you mean about the page numbers. I have so far only used 18th century issues, where there is only one page number - that in the issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Point on pagination noted. I had not come across this problem as the kind of pagination to which you refer seems to be a 19th century phenomenon: see for example this. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Phoe. As you're good with succession boxes, could you help me create one for this article. It should include his three peerage titles (Baron of Oxmantown, Viscount Oxmantown and Earl of Rosse - all new creations), and say that the viscountcy became extinct on his death while the barony and earldom passed to his nephew. This is beyond my Wikipedia skills I'm afraid... Tryde (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Tryde (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Saw your move of William Trench, 3rd Earl of Clancarty should we also shorten the countesses names? Starting for instance with Sarah Juliana Le Poer Trench, Countess of Clancarty to Sarah Le Poer Trench, Countess of Clancarty? Daytrivia (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is she notable? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Just Curious if you know the answer to this question... if someone was appointed to the Privy Council of Great Britain and was alive past 1801 were they automatically put into the Privy Council of the United Kingdom ? i.e. William Pitt the Younger originally appointed in 1782 and died as Prime Minister in 1806 ?

Thanks Michael Drew (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see point #12 in my submission - I think you will find that I am the only one of the three that has said they would do anything different. But by all means let your bias continue.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm German and everybody hates us :-), my father is an electrician and my mother a businesswoman, I have a diploma in forestry, I was neither in England, Ireland nor Scotland and I have not seen any noble in my life, so by what can you assume I'm biased ?

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This isnt a issue of nationality. At least you had the class to withdraw that erroneous comment.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If I'm wrong, I'm fine to admit and/or correct it. And yes, you're right it is not a issue of nationality, but of nothing, then I have always treated you as equal as any other user.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Phoe, could you help me with a parliament succession box for this article? The one I have created doesn't work. I can put it her when you have the time. Tryde (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tryde, I have added the boxes and the appropriate categories to the article ... if you wish so, you can add the not working boxes here and I will take a look. Greetings

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What I tried to do was replace "s-bef|before = Parliament of the United Kingdom" with "s-non|reason = Parliament of the United Kingdom". This doesn't work when you have "{{s-par|uk}}" above it. Is there a fault with the succession box or has it been decided that the correct layout is "Preceded by - Parliament of the ..."? Tryde (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For a reason I don't know, this happens always if s-bef is to be replaced by s-non, however I presume it a problem with the general code of the latter. A way to fix it and to receive the desired result is to add an additional line ...

{{s-par|uk}}

|-

{{s-non| reason = Sickness }}

{{s-ttl| title = [[Member of Parliament]] for England

| with = Someone

| years = 1778-1778 }}

{{s-aft| after = Death }}

In this connection I personally reckon it more suitable to use s-bef and s-aft than s-non, as there was indeed a succession with the parliaments.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started a little infernal voting thing to get a clearer view of how people stand and if we've got consensus either way. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you made an understandable mistake. The merger of Customs and Excise is in fact relatively modern - probably 20th century. I hope you have not made the same one in too many other cases, wher I have not been watching articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, an easy mistake to make. Note also I added an "a" before this and Treasury lord, becasue there were several members of each board. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you not think such drastic action as creating a redirect, effectively deleting the page was worthy of prior discussion on the article talk page? Discussion now taking place at WP:EAR##Notability policy avoided Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Phoe, indeed I should have complained to you initially but the deletion of the article, by this method, took me by surprise. I am used to seeing the notability tags, which I would prefer. Thanks for redoing the article. Daytrivia (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. The tag is generally used, if the notability of an article's subject is unclear and the possibility exist that the notability could be established by additional facts. It's rather a hint than a actual process. (see also on Template:Notability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) "Use this template when an article subject is most likely non-notable. When an article is certainly, hopelessly non-notable take it to Articles for deletion or nominate it for proposed deletion"). By the way please take a nomination of an article you have created not personally, but see it only as motivation for improvement. Best wishes

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 03:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As you are aware, User:Daytrivia has a habit of creating articles on non-notable wives of peers. I went through her edit history and found 28 articles that wouldn't meet notability criteria. How do you think we should tackle this? Should we nominate them all for deletion or should we ask Daytrivia them into the articles on their husbands, and then redirect them. Or should we just leave it? I could give you the list of articles I found if you want to. Tryde (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To get an article nominated for deletion, especially if as result of the nomination it was actually deleted or redirected, is always frustrating for the article's creator, as its implicates that other users don't acknowledge their effort and work. Doing this with 28 good faith-articles would mean, in my eyes, an unnecessary low blow, which I personally would like to avoid. Instead I would request you, Daytrivia, to review your already created articles more closely, to establish notability where possible and to redirect articles by yourself when improvement can't be achieved. In the future, I would propose you not to start new articles with pure genealogical content, but only if the article's subject held one or more significant posts in his lifetime. If you have doubts about one's notability or you have other questions, please feel free to ask me.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 16:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice Phoe and your thoughts Tryde. I do not take them lightly but with appreciation and some consideration. I have, however, been somewhat encouraged by explanations for the removal of the notability tag on several articles including Sarah Le Poer Trench, Countess of Clancarty the tag being removed by Erik9. Further, by the encouraging words on my talk page by Jeanne Boleyn: "Daytrivia, you are doing a great job creating so many articles on noblemen and women. Keep up the good work." Nevertheless, I may be more reluctant in the future just for the sake of peace. Daytrivia (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thomas Morton (1764–1838).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Apparently a user over at Commons got legal threats about NPG sourced images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See The Commons Village Pump; personally, I don't think it's at all relevant here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notices.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started a little infernal voting thing to get a clearer view of how people stand and if we've got consensus either way. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you made an understandable mistake. The merger of Customs and Excise is in fact relatively modern - probably 20th century. I hope you have not made the same one in too many other cases, wher I have not been watching articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, an easy mistake to make. Note also I added an "a" before this and Treasury lord, becasue there were several members of each board. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you not think such drastic action as creating a redirect, effectively deleting the page was worthy of prior discussion on the article talk page? Discussion now taking place at WP:EAR##Notability policy avoided Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Phoe, indeed I should have complained to you initially but the deletion of the article, by this method, took me by surprise. I am used to seeing the notability tags, which I would prefer. Thanks for redoing the article. Daytrivia (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. The tag is generally used, if the notability of an article's subject is unclear and the possibility exist that the notability could be established by additional facts. It's rather a hint than a actual process. (see also on Template:Notability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) "Use this template when an article subject is most likely non-notable. When an article is certainly, hopelessly non-notable take it to Articles for deletion or nominate it for proposed deletion"). By the way please take a nomination of an article you have created not personally, but see it only as motivation for improvement. Best wishes

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 03:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As you are aware, User:Daytrivia has a habit of creating articles on non-notable wives of peers. I went through her edit history and found 28 articles that wouldn't meet notability criteria. How do you think we should tackle this? Should we nominate them all for deletion or should we ask Daytrivia them into the articles on their husbands, and then redirect them. Or should we just leave it? I could give you the list of articles I found if you want to. Tryde (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To get an article nominated for deletion, especially if as result of the nomination it was actually deleted or redirected, is always frustrating for the article's creator, as its implicates that other users don't acknowledge their effort and work. Doing this with 28 good faith-articles would mean, in my eyes, an unnecessary low blow, which I personally would like to avoid. Instead I would request you, Daytrivia, to review your already created articles more closely, to establish notability where possible and to redirect articles by yourself when improvement can't be achieved. In the future, I would propose you not to start new articles with pure genealogical content, but only if the article's subject held one or more significant posts in his lifetime. If you have doubts about one's notability or you have other questions, please feel free to ask me.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 16:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice Phoe and your thoughts Tryde. I do not take them lightly but with appreciation and some consideration. I have, however, been somewhat encouraged by explanations for the removal of the notability tag on several articles including Sarah Le Poer Trench, Countess of Clancarty the tag being removed by Erik9. Further, by the encouraging words on my talk page by Jeanne Boleyn: "Daytrivia, you are doing a great job creating so many articles on noblemen and women. Keep up the good work." Nevertheless, I may be more reluctant in the future just for the sake of peace. Daytrivia (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thomas Morton (1764–1838).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Apparently a user over at Commons got legal threats about NPG sourced images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See The Commons Village Pump; personally, I don't think it's at all relevant here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notices.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you removed the PROD from Bafode Diakhaby, I suppose I ought to inform you that the article has now been taken to AfD. I should also tell you that simply being in the squad of a professional club is not enough to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. The player actually has to appear in a senior, competitive match for him/her to satisfy WP:ATHLETE, and Diakhaby does not meet this criterion. – PeeJay 10:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch finding that he was in the Irish HoC. Cheers. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I started this mini project by trying to remove some copyleft articles (see User:Philip Baird Shearer/BCWs copyright issues), I am currently working on a new Cromwell's Upper House article and as I work through the list I am creating biographies for those who do not have one. Hence my article on Sir Gilbert Gerard, 1st Baronet of Harrow on the Hill which lead me to Sir Francis Barrington, 1st Baronet which at your suggestion lead me to creating Henry Williams (alias Cromwell).

I could not find an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography, so I have cut a first draft of Henry Williams (alias Cromwell), by copying into a new article Mark Noble's essay on the chap. (and will lead me to create an article for Ralph Warren (Lord Mayor) (as Noble did the work in footnotes to Henry Williams)). --PBS (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering your interest in Cromwell related articles and especially in view of the article about Henry, the book [1], where I had found him, might be helpfully to you. Regards ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but my passing this way is more to do with fixing the some problems with Civil War and Interregnum articles rather than any specific interest in Cromwell's family, although of course that is not to say that I might not add a few more in the future as it seems to me from my recent readings that marriage as an alliance was as important to the politics of the Protectorate as it was with the Monarchy and to date there are a lot of information on this missing from the current range of articles on OC and his relations. --PBS (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I note your comments re: deletion of the Baron of Cartsburn article, however disagree with some points. This is not the same situation as the Baron of Dirleton article you refer to, as I make clear on the AfD discussion page. I would like to have the chance to develop these history articles further. The dignity of Baron of Cartsburn is notable enough to have a number of publications printed either specifically about it or referring to it, which makes this an unusually rich case. I would be grateful if you would reconsider the deletion request in light of the above. If you think separate individual entries are not warranted, I will happily agree to their deletion and the inclusion of relevant facts within the main article. Thanks. ~~ Editor8888 _talk ~~ 09:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Better to keep your comments on the Articles for deletion page, Editor8888. Ikip (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit in the opening paragraph of George Cholmondeley, 1st Marquess of Cholmondeley causes me to imagine that other related articles may be similarly flawed.

Should invite you to scan the other six articles about the Marquesses of Cholmondeley. Ordinarily, I would be pleased to correct my own mistakes, but I didn't quite understand what I may need to change.

The only other British nobility articles I've edited in series are the other branch of Cholmondeleys -- the six Barons Delamere (and Thomas P. G. Cholmondeley); but I suspect I am likely to have made similar misjudgments? --Tenmei (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, since the 1st Marquess had inherited the earldom on the death of his grandfather, he was from then known as Earl of Cholmondeley until he was raised to the marquessate. The 1st Marquess's father however was styled Viscount Malpas", the latter title having been only a courtesy title. Has this made the difference clear or is it necessary that I go more into detail? ... I will recheck the other articles you have mentioned in the next days. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to polish these articles. As you might guess, the kinds of sources which inform articles about the Meiji aristocracy are very different than is available for the British marquesses and barons. In working with the Cholmondeleys, I'd hoped that I'd begin look at the Japanese barons with a new perspective. That hasn't happened yet. Perhaps things will seem different in a month or so. --Tenmei (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to the earlier version once again. Perhaps you should raise this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Regards, Tryde (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok and thanks for setting me right about the use of the line symbol. I think it's a shame when it comes to marking off an election or other career box though but if that's the protocol, so be it. Cheers, --Graham Lippiatt (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Birdwood: I just wanted to make a point of saying that you do yourself great credit for bringing this to AfD, despite being the original author. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Phoe. As you have far greater knowledge on the technical issues of Wikipedia than me, I have a question for you. This article was moved from "Privy Council of the United Kingdom" to its present name in May 2007. However, there are still hundreds of links that use the old name. Is it possible to use one of those bot things to automatically change all links with the name "Privy Council of the United Kingdom" to "Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council"?

Btw, following on from your example (i. e. Richard Birdwood), I'm thinking of redirecting an article, Edward Digby, 9th Baron Digby, which I created back in February 2007! His lordship is probably not worthy of an article so the material could probably merged into the Baron Digby article. Regards, Tryde (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tryde, yes it is possible that a bot could perform such a task; any request can be made on Wikipedia:Bot requests. Another way to replace the redirects could be to use the semi-automatic Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, whereby however in this case the main work would be handled by yourself. In every case you probably should take a look at WP:NOTBROKEN firstly.

A short look into the Official Baronage of 1886 has shown me that Lord Digby was lieutenant-colonel and commandant of the Queen's Own Dorset Yeomanry from 1866 to 1870. By his British title, he sat also in the Conservative benches of the House of Lords, so I consider a redirection rather unnecessary. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't really get WP:NOTBROKEN. So by changing "Privy Council of the United Kingdom" to "Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council", I'm doing something wrong? What do you think I should do, just leave it? Tryde (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My hint on WP:NOTBROKEN was not meant to discourage you, but merely a pointer that a request could be probably rejected because of insufficient relevance. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll just leave it then. Thanks, Tryde (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your tweaking this awkward succesion box. This is not only a graphic anomaly.

In this time frame, Japanese historiography vascillates between two complementary dating systems -- the sequential years of an Imperial reign vs. the tentative Japanese era name (nengō) system which was temporarily abandoned after Hakuchi, and then re-introduced after a gap of 50 years.

In this succession box, I'm almost persuaded that my best efforts here were wrong a priori -- and your edits do little to address the flaws for which I alone remain responsible.

However, your edit inspires a ripple in the 14th century.

In the Nanboku-chō period, there were two sets of emperors. Each lineage promulgated asynchronous, serial eras. For the next 400 years, the prevailing Northern Court eras were accepted as valid. The Southern Court dates were construed as mere artifacts. However, Meiji period scholars and the imprimatur of an Imperial Rescript confirm that the Southern Court eras should have been construed as legitimate. and What had been accepted as "right" became "wrong."

As it happens, both sequences do matter in our Wikipedia context.

I present this problem hoping only that it will linger in the back of your mind -- unaddressed and unresolved until perhaps February or March 2010. For now, I have other projects in hand; but I'm working on-and-off with someone in Kamakura whose interest in this subject is fed by the locale. We may be in a position to turn our attention to graphics before next spring; and your "outsider" perspective could be invaluable. Just a thought, nothing more.

On one hand, this explanation is simply a unexpected response to your edit. On the other hand, I offer this curious apples and oranges anomaly as a gesture of thanks. I appreciate the time you invested smoothing over my mistakes in the Cholmondeley articles. --Tenmei 06:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently replacing the template "Succession box one to two" in all its using articles and thus went also to Hakuchi (era). Please feel free to notify me if I can help you with technical/graphical issues - however please bear also in mind that unfortunately I'm not versed in Japanese history, so I certainly would not be the right place to go for specific questions regarding the line of epochs or the like.

I don't think that you made mistakes on the Cholmondeley articles, but rather would it label errors based on a lack of knowledge. By the way if you are still interested in peerages you might wish to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 16:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. A quick glance at your contributions history made clear what you were doing and how you happened to stumble on Hakuchi (era). In a flash, I thought aha -- the Eureka effect.

In the beginning of the new year, the substance of these nengō-related problems will perhaps seem timely on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan. Consensus in that forum will need to inform text and graphics; but our work also needs to be understandable for readers without a background in Japanese history.

In this context, you represent an ideal critic --- presumably knowing little about the subject per se, but with a background in tricky issues involved in succession. For example, the most difficult sentence I've composed for a Wikipedia article is buried in William Cholmondeley, 3rd Marquess of Cholmondeley:

"As both sons had died before him, Cholmondeley was succeeded in his titles by his grandson George, who was eldest living son of the former Viscount Malpas."

Looking back, I can't quite recapture what seemed so hard. The early drafts of that sentence felt as if I'd re-visited my early encounters with elementary algebra and learning to solve simultaneous equations.

I'm a little surprised to find that an investment in the Cholmondeley articles produced dividends in this seemingly unrelated subject; but there you have it.

We can pick this up again in the new year. --Tenmei (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I notice that you have recently made several edits involving the moving of succession boxes in articles. I appreciate your good intentions and hard work, but I feel that there are some cases in which such edits can cause confusion, particularly in pop song articles which have chart succession tables in more than one section pertaining to different releases or versions of the song. When you move both/ all the succession boxes to place them after the "external links" section, it can then become unclear which table refers to which version. I'm aware that WP:FOOTERS appears to recommend positioning the boxes as you have done, but I don't believe the guideline was intended for this type of situation. I've asked for clarification and proposed an amendment to the wording of WP:FOOTERS here, so please feel free to add your thoughts. It's perhaps worth noting that Take on Me was assessed as a good article with the chart succession boxes in the "charts" sections for the versions of the song to which they refer, and at that time WP:FOOTERS advised the same order as it does now, so it appears that accepted good practice for specific circumstances such as pop charts can differ from the more general guideline.

All the best,

Contains Mild Peril (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notice. I have meanwhile seen this revert [2] and have stopped to move the succession boxes. Per your explanation, I will not continue it and request you to revert me when you feel the necessity. Would you however please exclude my changes at the succession boxes in the respective articles, since I'm currently replacing "Template:Succession box one to two" to prepare its deletion. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't actually know what I'm doing or what the difference is, but I'm copying the succession tables from the new locations back to the old locations manually rather than undoing your edits in the Take on Me article, so that should preserve any other changes you've made. I hope that's OK. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A good example for what I'm doing and what I have done also on "Take on me" is this edit [3]. If you simply had undone my edit, you had not only moved the boxes back, but also converted them back to the old format, which I try to eliminate, so thanks for your attention and sorry for the additional work. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 22:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Phoe. I didn't notice that one had been created :) Craigy (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings,

I don't know why you were deleting succession boxes from "world's oldest man" articles, but I think the article is better with them. They provide succinct information in a clear manner, and have clickable links to their predecessor and successor.

Why should such a useful tool be deleted? Ryoung122 12:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)