User talk:SGBailey

Because I felt it needed a specific disambiguation type thing BEFORE the article started. The most common confusion, and I swear this is true having spent yonks (perhaps even gurt yonks) going through Durham-related articles, is between the Englsih city and county, and if there was a risk this would cause confusion I was hoping to catch readers before they had to get into the article text. I've done the same thing the other way round, id you see what I mean.

In other words I suppose I am claiming that dismabiguating the two English Durhams is a special case somewhat separate from the issue of all the other Durhams in NC and Queensland etc, and was trying to make provision for dealing with that in a helpful way.

hth, have a nice Xmas or other religious or secular winter frolics of your choice, all good wishes, Nevilley 14:40 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

---

mav: You've edited some of the stuff done today by ??? about Jerky boys. -- Apart from a bit of copy editting on it which I want to do, I observe that several of the articles are very similar. Is it good form to cut them down to the minimum and put all the "communal info" in one place (presumably Jerky Boys itself? -- SGBailey 23:13 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)

Perhaps. As it stands all the individual articles are little more than list containers and the person creating them seems intent on making an encyclopedia of Jerky Boys. I say just let the person play so long as the articles are of encyclopedic interest (which they seem to be) and just clean-up the articles for style. --mav

---

A test:

Walk: (verb)

Move using feet from one location to another at a relaxed rate.

Walker

(verb):

Someone who walks.

Walk (verb)

Move using feet from one location to another at a relaxed rate.

Walker (verb)

Someone who walks.

1. Item 1
2. Item 2
   • SubItem 2a
   • SubItem 2b
3. Item 3
4. Item 4

1. New Item 1 after blank line
2. New Item 2
   • SubItem 2a
     1. SubSubItem2a1
     2. SubSubItem2a2
   • SubItem 2b

---

Harry's name is Prince Harry of Wales. Children of a prince of wales are called [Prince {name} of Wales], just as the children of a royal duke or earl are called [Prince/ss {name} of {title}]. Furthermore, his surname is not Windsor, nor is his father's, his brother's, the children of Prince Andrew and of Princess Anne. It is a commonly held mistake. The surnames of all the Queen's descendants (in the male line) is Mountbatten-Windsor and has been since an Order-in-Council in 1960. (The female line take the surname of their father.)

Wikipedia style is to never use the surname of a royal, but their title, for many reasons, not the least of which is that most royals do not have a surname, and those that do often have a surname that is different from the Royal House (eg, Mountbatten-Windsor of the House of Windsor). As people were constantly getting this wrong and coming up with at the very least wrong surnames, frequently absurd surnames that don't exist, a major debate occured on Wiki, through talk pages, history pages and the wiki list. An agreed consensus was arrived at; in fact it wasn't a consensus, it was unanimous, to use the correct title, never the surname, in article titles. Wiki members are currently in the process of changing all references to all royals to follow the clear rules as agreed, which in this case is Prince Harry of Wales. It involves as other examples, Prince Arthur of Connaught, Princess Beatrice of York, etc. The word 'prince' is not featured at the start of a name where a person has a clear title (eg., Andrew, Duke of York or where someone is a crown prince/ss. The title 'King', 'Queen', 'Prince', 'Grand Duke', etc is not used for a reigning monarch, or someone who has previously reigned, eg, Juan Carlos of Spain, etc.

Titles were clarified after consultation with Buckingham Palace and other international royal palace officials.

I hope this clarifies matters. JTD 23:47 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Makes sense - Thanks -- SGBailey

Thanks SGB. I'm rather passionate about Wiki so I want to try to get the styles correct. JTD 00:08 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

---

Re: your question in Wikipedia:Village pump about the comment inserted when a page is moved. The "Moved to new_article_name" comment is put on the newly-created redirect which bears the old title -- and is what will show up under the old title in recentchanges, watchlist, and user contribs (of the mover). "Moved from old_article_name" wouldn't be terribly helpful there, as it would repeat the same title and you'd have to follow the link to find out where it was moved to. Note that there is currently no note at all in the history of the page at its new location; this should probably be fixed, but an early proposal to simply duplicate the last version with a note in the comment field was rejected as wasteful. (I've answered here rather than at the pump as I'm currently using a Mac browser which cuts pages off at 32k.) --Brion 02:14 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

---

Did you take that picture of george abbot yourself in the guildford page? I've just tried to google (http://www.google.co.uk/) for a better one, as it's a bit blurry.

I'll try to take one myself at some point.

Kylet 22:09 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

---

I took a picture tonight, now I've got a new digital camera... It's nice and clear... but it was 9.30 so everything else is great but the statue is solid black! The disadvantages of only a 1" LCD - I couldn't tell!

Plenty more opportunities, but when I do add one, I'll make it the same size and eveything so it's a straight swop.

Kylet 22:23 11 Jun, 2003 (GMT)