User talk:Mackensen/Archive1

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

Hey, just looking at your changes to the Disraeli page. If you want to go and change all the peer references in the cabinet lists, go ahead, but when I made them, I was using an informal "Lord Name" for all Barons, Viscounts, Earls, and Marquesses, which is correct, but not the formal way of referring to them. (Dukes are always Dukes, oddly). Also, be careful about it - you changed the reference to the 15th Earl of Derby in Disraeli's second government from "Lord Derby" to "Lord Stanley" - in fact, he succeeded his father as Earl of Derby in 1869, I think. john 03:07, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I was working from Lord Blake's bio, and opted for the formal title when possible. I forget why Dukes always keep the formal title. Yes, you're quite correct about Stanley, I've no idea why I did that. I'll fix it immediately, if you didn't already. My bad.

Just to clarify something, regarding your comment on the WikiProject Peerage page. The current Earl of Derby page doesn't look like the version that it shown on the WikiProject page anymore. Mintguy 20:52, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Good call on adding the table at the top, but if you look at the later Prime Ministers you will see that they all have both types of table (they serve different purposes). This is the same the US Presidents.

Extending the PM tables to earlier PMs sounds good to me...although finding pictures of them all would be nice... john 07:36, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Be careful with putting in links to cabinet members - on the Palmerston edit there were a couple that linked to the wrong person. john 01:50, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would say make the Sir George Grey page redirect to George Grey. Make that into a disambig page between the two George Greys. The British one should probably be George Grey (British politician). john 05:11, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The "unambiguous, commonly used name" rule seems to be kind of a holy writ, and most people just don't understand the peerage very well. As I was telling Lord Emsworth, I think that even if we lose this vote, we can probably still get most of what we want just by narrowly construing to what extent exceptions can be made. As seen from the current vote, we have nearly enough votes to get the full "all peers be referred to by highest title" rule implemented. All we need to do is pry off a few people to get a fairly restrictive rule that only exempts a small number (e.g. 20th century prime ministers, Robert Walpole, Castlereagh, and Bertrand Russell) of people, and do what we want with the rest. Ah well. This weekend was a bad time for this. Between all the being at school with no school yet, and the extraordinarily cold weather, all I seem to be doing is checking Wikipedia...sigh... john 06:52, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

P.S. It would appear that we both came to the same conclusion at the same time, that we're probably okay for most of the lower profile cases. I mean, I doubt any of these people will be coming and arguing that Philip Cunliffe-Lister, 1st Earl Swinton should really be at Philip Lloyd-Greame, or whatever. As I feared, though, we seem to have gotten too ambitious, and are being punished for it. I actually think that having multiple choices on one question would have been better - we would all have voted for the full peerage rule, and the other people would have split their votes among other options. Ah well, it's too late now. john 06:55, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have never been able to find out why Lloyd-Graeme changed his name to Cunliffe-Lister (or was it the other way round?). Does anyone know? Adam 07:01, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In order to inherit his wife's family property iirc.Alci12

Considering the absolutely awful situation of the voting, I beg to ask you if you know of any users likely to be swayed to our side. -- Lord Emsworth 12:44, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mackenson, the reason I deleted the page with the really long title was that Wik moved it to the Wikipedia: namespace and nothing was left behind but a redirect. Since you intended the article to be deleted anyway I deleted the redirect. The article is at [1]. If I delete the one in the main namespace will you avoid creating it again? Thanks, silsor 03:10, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Seems to have re-appeared... Mrdice 03:12, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)
- I didn't catch the comment before I restored it. Sorry about that. You people move too fast for me...
  - Thanks, I deleted it again. silsor 03:14, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

An article on Morley is indeed overdue. Although mightn't it perhaps be better put at John Morley, 1st Viscount Morley? Of course, compared to our coverage of, say, French, or German, 19th and early 20th century politicians, our coverage of Britain is absolutely superb...There's still not an article on Bülow, for instance, and a great number of the French PM articles are total stubs I set up just to go through the table. john 02:53, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hey, as someone who's done work on 19th century German stuff, check out the dispute over at Talk:Prussia and Talk:Brandenburg-Prussia. I am becoming exasperated with this nonsense. john 22:59, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have absolutely no knowledge of the stewards of the chiltern hundreds, unfortunately. john 06:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reading the article, it sounds as though the office is technically held by the individual until the next resignation, despite being a completely theoretical office. john 07:38, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Merging of office sucession tables[edit]

The problem with merging the sucession tables of different offices is that they are not generally related; merging is a special case that applies to titles merely because they generally have a common sucessor (e.g., a former title and a new creation, &c.). I admit that the Churchill page looks a bit odd right now, but merging them together looks worse, really.
James F. (talk) 22:01, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Prussian Foreign Ministers[edit]

Mackensen, Prussian ministers and German state secretaries are quite different. There was no German cabinet before 1918. Just the Chancellor and whatever state secretaries he wanted to assist him in his policy, including a state secretary for foreign affairs. Prussia, however, had its own cabinet, as did the various other German states within the Empire. In Prussia, at least, that cabinet included a foreign minister (as it had before 1871). That Foreign Minister was normally also the Minister-President of Prussia after 1871 (except not during the Minister-presidencies of Roon, Eulenburg, and Hohenlohe), and also normally the Imperial Chancellor (except not during the Chancellorship of Hohenlohe). There is already an article listing the State Secretaries at Foreign Minister of Germany. The Prussia article should list the Prussian foreign ministers, even if these happen to also be the Imperial Chancellors. As far as I am aware, the list I have there (which is from that "Governments of the World" book - I'll look for the exact cite tomorrow) of Prussian foreign ministers before 1871 is also accurate. john 04:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)