User talk:Miesianiacal/October 2011-March 2012

Featured article review for Order of Canada

I have nominated Order of Canada for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. You are receiving this notice because you have been identified as one of the top three editors of the article based on edit count. Brad (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII & George VI

Howdy Mies. I believe Neelix readings of those RMs, isn't entirley accurate - particularly concerning George V. Anyways, I moved towards rejecting of country - because of the article James I of England. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Succession

I've long taken the view that GoodDay's disruptive comments are best ignored. I hope we can agree on that.  :) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes he can be disruptive; though, he's good enough to restrict it to talk pages, as far as I've experienced. But, then, we can all be disruptive, at times; I know there are people who think I am. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"...he's good enough to restrict it to talk pages, as far as I've experienced.." Lucky you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop stirring drama, Ghmyrtle. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Would you like to take a look at User:Ghmyrtle/succession? I'm minded to move it to main space, in the next few hours, as 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms. Not a punchy title, but it's hard to see a shorter alternative. It's very much cobbled together from the existing articles (which will obviously need to be reshaped once it goes up) - once it is up, we can discuss the text, structure, even the title if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good start. I thought the article could be more broad, though, covering all reform proposals and those that came up this year would be a subsection; a literal transplantation of Act of Settlement 1701#Amendment proposals to its own article, since the reforms discussed in that subsection actually encompass more than just the Act of Settlement. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you weren't around. Well, I thought that as it is these specific proposals that are going to be progressed, rather than the various past proposals, they should have their own article, with a small amount of background. But I'm open to all constructive suggestions, and I doubt if I'll want to be that closely involved with the article as it develops (famous last words....) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay; well, we'll see how it progresses/evolves. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Somehow, I knew (sooner or later) you were gonna de-emphasis the United Kingdom. No worries though, I'm not gonna start an edit-war or a 10+ days worth of discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: EIIR Diamond Jubilee

umm, i didn explain my edits and removal, conversely you didnt explain either reversal, which per BRD means discus and discussion doesnt happen with an initiation of dialogue or reasons. Anhyway, i put it on the talk page.Lihaas (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, in reverting your removal of the material, I didn't elaborate on why I was doing so; I suppose I felt the explanation I gave for an earlier restoration of the material applied to the more recent same. I shouldn't have assumed you'd given a detailed look to the edit history; I apologise. Regardless, the D in BRD means discussion on the talk page and it is your responsibility, as the person wishing to make the change, to initiate it. Thanks for having now done so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Provincial & Territorial infoboxes

I'll be gone for about an hour, besides - other will likely wanna way in. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Governors General of Canada articles

Howdy. First off, I'm not gonna edit war with you across 28 articles. Secondly, you didn't have a consensus to change those to Governor generalship & Thirdly, just because you've a strong interest in Canadian monarchy related articles, doesn't mean you're the boss of them. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at the discussion I began at your talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you also re-add the British Prime Ministers to the infoboxes of the earlier GGs (pre-1931)? GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference

Hi, you left a couple messages on my talk page indicating that I wasn't using the correct reference template and pointing me to a site with a large number of templates. For references, I generally use < ref > < /ref >. It is a pretty typical style, that I see often in Wikipedia. Which one do you prefer? Victoriaedwards (talk)

<ref>/</ref> is syntax between which one is to place the reference template code, as you've correctly done here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Skyring

His latest comments are worrying me. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Awkward phrase

The phrase "Governorship general" is not common usage. I'll happily change Governor-Generals to Governors-General, but this does not extend to making up odd constructions such as Governordom-general or Governorship-general. They jar the reader's eye. Far better to find a different construction that provides the same information without making people wince. Saying that the same awkward phrase has been used elsewhere and we should therefore be consistent in our awkwardness cuts no ice. Are you really going to edit war over such nonsense? I'm going to hunt down all the other instances of this horrible bit of faux-English and stomp them to death, and if you want to make a fuss over it, be my guest. --Pete (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Looking at the issue of conformity, I note that the Stephen Harper article does not use the phrase "Prime Ministership" as a section heading to describe his time as Canadian Prime Minister. It is simply "Prime Minister". The sub-article describing his PM career is titled Premiership of Stephen Harper, a change from the more awkward Prime Ministership of Stephen Harper. --Pete (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Being disruptive as you are is one thing, but I caution you against making promises of keeping it up to impose your preference. "I don't like it" isn't a valid argument in Wikipedia.

A discussion about this was started before you showed up; see Talk:David Johnston#Perhaps discussion to avoid an edit war would be appropriate. Please do as WP:BRD advises you to and leave the status quo alone until a course of action can be decided upon by consensus. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. On reviewing the discussion, including the request for grammarian oversight, it looks to me like there is consensus for a less "clunky" phrasing, with only one dissenting voice - you. My view remains that removing awkward and clunky phrasing from Wikipedia, where there is a clear alternative in common use, is a good way forward. --Pete (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:CON for the actual definition of consensus in the context of Wikipedia. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir

Hi. I reverted your undoing of my copyedit there. Let me explain why. There are various house styles out there regarding capitalisation, and in some of them words like "king" and "queen" are capitalised. Here on Wikipedia however there's a really simple rule. We capitalise in three instances; proper nouns (like Aberdeen, Keith Richards or Admiral Jellicoe), the first word in a sentence, and (occasionally) where it would lead to ambiguity. See WP:MOSCAP if you are interested in finding out more about this house style. Best wishes, --John (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WP:MOSCAP was the guideline I followed when restoring the proper capitalisation: In the instances you decapitalised the words "king" and "queen", they were referring to a specific individual by their title, in which case the title should be capitalised: "A very high ranking office may begin with a capital letter when used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g. Elizabeth II is 'the Queen' not 'the queen'." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Order of Merit

I answered to the talk page. Just notifying you if you haven't put it at your wachlist. I hope that this dispute will be the start of a good friendship.--178.128.169.158 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Young Liberal republicans

Darn it. Why didn't the Liberals consider this, when they were the majority government? grrrr. GoodDay (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Likely because hardly anyone cares about the topic. And, along those lines, my prediction is that this proposed resolution will go nowhere; the "arguments" put forward in it are embarassingly sophmoric. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Liberal convention chose to reject the republican proposal. Apparently, they too, wanna remain in the dark ages :( GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad the majority realise complex choices shouldn't be based on non-sequitur catch-phrases. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Edward Schreyer

Merci Yeah, image are low quality, but see original Romanian file, it too unperfect. and size problem? that it becuasue Schreyer image are head + torso, but other images are just head + shouders. if you think it better extract just head, try it, but image it SOOO low quality, and just head make image more unuseable.

if you want play with size-setup, find at page List of Governors General of Canada line [-[-File:Edward Schreyer.jpg|65px-]-] and modife number 65 --Teplice, Ústecko (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The size matter can't be resolved simply by modifying the fixed pixel size. All the other images are cropped to a 5:6 ratio; the one of Schreyer is not.

I understand why the image is low quality. But, at least we have one now! Again, thanks for uploading it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. If Canadian archives even open to public use in next time, we can enprove acrticles with better images. Best regards --Teplice, Ústecko (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military history of Canada

I have been redoing the Military history of Canada article (See the review going on for more info). Was wondering if you would to look over the new section I made from your articles. At the review they made me trim it alto and I was wondering if the main points are still being talked about? Your the expert in this subject so can you look it over make sure its right and info is the relevant stuff we should be talking about whrn refering to this subject. See Military history of Canada#Canadian Crown and the Forces. Moxy (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: the Diamond Jubilee article

Hello Miesianiacal.

Regarding your recent reverts of my and another editor's changes, have you read the WP:PUNC regarding serial commas?

They should be included, or omitted, in such a way that they do not introduce ambiguity.

In the article, this sentence in particular is problematic: "Prince Harry will tour Belize, Jamaica, and The Bahamas and Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, and Sophie, Countess of Wessex, will visit other Caribbean countries."

The first serial comma makes the "connection" between The Bahamas and Prince Harry's tour looser, while it instead, lacking a comma there, awkwardly and incorrectly binds The Bahamas closer to Prince Edward. If one didn't know better, one might think that the Bahamas would tour the Caribbean countries, along with Prince Edward and his wife.

Don't you agree?

HandsomeFella (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I've added the comma. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This in proper order?

Book:Governors General of CanadaMoxy (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be. But, I find the "Acting governor general" entries a bit troublesome, since there were likely other instances when acting governors and governors general took over. Also, the term is now Administrator of the Government. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nova Scotia LtGs

I'm not certain of their numbering. Do they start again after Confederation of not? If so, Francis is numbered 31st & if not, then 61st. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II

I have reverted your changes because it is notable because it is the official ecyclopedia of the new zealand government. And is part of the New Zealand governments celebrations Brian | (Talk) 01:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss instead of reverting; see WP:BRD. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do. I did add the cite to the NZ government department as well that launched this Brian | (Talk) 02:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, oops. I did not notice when you reverted for the second time. I was editing and when the edit conflict came up I just thought that was me. That got me close to 3RR. oops. Sorry about that. Brian | (Talk) 02:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster 1931

I think it's important to note that until the Statute, the dominions were legally colonies of the UK. It was only with the Statute that they acquired the status of independent countries. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 23:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps there's a more consise way to sneak that into the lead. The lead is meant to be a summary, and the detail you added seemed a bit wordy; the info is covered elsewhere in the article, I believe. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just say that it made the dominions independent countries, without all the talk of "effective legislative independence." HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your comment on my talk page, and I also created a discussion, as you requested me to do. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

ARE YOU UP FOR IT? Talk:Prime Minister of Canada 174.7.90.110 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Image alignment

There was once a rule against left-aligned images under three-order sub-headings (=== Heading ===), not second-order ones. I forget why there was such a rule, but it was removed from the Manual of Style [1][2] after discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 10#Left-aligned images under subsection headers and image squeezing and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 109#Question. DrKiernan (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I thought it was under second order headers and didn't realise the guideline had been rescinded, anyway. Thank you for pointing that out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what to do -

I have noticed that this has happened again for the countless time. Is there anyway to resolve this? Dont want to revert this guy ever 6 months or so for the next 10 years.Moxy (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just revert him. If he starts to edit war, he can be reported. UrbanNerd will have to watch his step, given that there's stong evidence he's banned editor User:PhilthyBear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Crown and the CF (RMC St-Jean)

Hello. Thank you for editing my formatting mistakes. I was wondering your reasoning for the 2007 RMC St-Jean event having a connection with the article. The 're-opening' was a bit of media directed misnomer, as it was not closed before this. RMC SJ is still not a degree granting institution. In 2007 in went from a CEGEP to a CEGEP/college, and not to a university as it was previously. Since it was simply an administrative change, and did nothing in reference to the 'royal' designation or the school's existence, I was confused as to why it was included in the article. Horrendously insignificant I know, but I mention it since I was loosely involved with it. Keep up the good work. Cheers. Trackratte (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

recent change

Miesianiacal, while I agree with the removal of the note from the table, it might be worthy of inclusion in the article, possibly with the possible problems section. Thanks --UnQuébécois (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm

The problem with the links you have in there now, is that they point to the article about current "country" not the article about the country at the time it was part of the commonwealth realms. "During the dominion phase, the British monarch remained head of state... " - "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that has Elizabeth II as its monarch and head of state." - The term Dominion was used officially until 1952, and was replaced by realm (both having just about the same meaning). (btw WP:BRD should have applied here?)--UnQuébécois (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I was in the midst of opening a discussion at the talk page when you posted the above. Please see my comments there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

It has been a long time since I have edited. Thanks for the heads up on the citations. I will endeaver to maintain consistency in citations. I won't be as active as I once was, but I will make some edits based on books I am reading at a particular time, and Omar Bradley made a lot of comments about Harold Alexander. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Henry Hope (lieutenant governor of Quebec)

He was never governor, he was lieutenant governor while Carleton (Dorchester) was governor. The disambiguation can't be simply "lieutenant governor" because there was a Henry Hope who was lieutenant governor of the Isle of Man (there is no indication that this was the same person). There is a newly created article, so changing the disambiguation to "(governor)" breaks the link. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

He was a governor, of the lieutenant type. Hence, the disambiguator used the lower case 'g' on "governor", as opposed to the capitalised title "Governor". You've used his actual proper title of his office, which should therefore be all-capped, as "Lieutenant Governor of Quebec", and WP:NCPDAB recommends against using as a disambiguator both anything that has multiple words and anything that has to be capitalised. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying that Joe Biden is the President of the United States, of the "vice" type. It just breaks accuracy too much. The modern day Lieutenant Governor of Quebec is a "governor" of sorts, since there is no one above him within Quebec, but in the 1780s there was an actual governor. We could try "Henry Hope (Canada)", like French Wikipedia does, although it's capitalized. Or perhaps Henry Hope (soldier), although there is a (different) Henry Hope (Royal Navy officer), which is hard to replace with a single uncapitalized word. It's good to keep disambiguations short, but as new articles get written, disambiguations become ambiguous again... I've encountered far too many "John Doe (politician)" articles which were obviously titled before a few other namesake politicians showed up. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't at all see any argument there against the use of "governor"; the Biden analogy is false (he would be a president, of the vice- type; but, in his case, if disambiguation was required, one could put "Joe Biden (vice-president)", similar to what was done with the other Henry Hope, who was Lieutenant-Governor of the Isle of Mann). Other options would be "Henry Hope (colonial governor)" or "Henry Hope (colonial administrator)" (using your own words in the opening of the article), since that's what the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec was in the late 18th century. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

An American president or a Russian president is a type of president; a vice-president is not a president at all. To try another analogy, the Vancouver Canucks are not Stanley Cup champions, even though in some language (like Portuguese) they would be referred to as "vice champions". I think the best disambiguation would be the one that incorporates what a person is actually remembered for. "Quebec lieutenant governor" would be my preferred choice over what's used now. Even WP:NCPDAB, in spite of its own guidelines suggesting brevity and non-capitalization where possible, mentions Roger Taylor (Duran Duran drummer) as an example of a disambiguation where a more "creative" solution is needed. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Parliament Interpretive Centre

Since this is your area of expertize, I though you should know about the new Parliament Interpretive Centre article. This is about the Parliament Buildings of Upper Canada at Front Street and Parliament Street. I think the article should probably be about the building, not the "interpretive centre". Just an FYI. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Miesianiacal: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 March 2012/Template:Music of Canada.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Lord Roem, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Secretary to The Queen

I'm new to Wikipedia and know that personal knowledge means nothing without something to back it up, but I just want to reassure you that when referring to Elizabeth II, she is to be be written The Queen (The, not the). It is because we are referring to THE Queen, not just any Queen. You will find that many media articles and even some government websites in Canada make the mistake.

To prove my case:

• The Prime Minister's news release appointing Kevin MacLeod to the position, with proper capitalization: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=3858
• The Queen's biographical information, with proper capitalization: http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/HMTheQueen.aspx
• The webpage for the Private Secretary to The Sovereign (UK), with proper capitalization: http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/RoyalHouseholddepartments/ThePrivateSecretarysOffice/ThePrivateSecretarysOffice.aspx

Polinerd101 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we have to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style. In this case, WP:MOSCAPS (incl. WP:JOBTITLES) applies. Note, it tells us "Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence", unless there is an "idiomatic exception". Subsequently, it shows the very words "the Queen" in exactly that way, with "the" decapitalised. Also regard every article (including Elizabeth II) to see that "the Queen" is the way the phrase is always written.

As I recall, I was once, some years ago, corrected here for trying to use "The Queen", as well. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)