Courtesy note: Atlantic Hurricane Names was nominated for deletion on October 6, 2006. Result was to redirect to List of named tropical cyclones. – Chacor 16:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_historical_national_capitals&diff=86380303&oldid=84406183 Hi! You added Székesfehérvár to the Hungary section of the page, but also changed the year I gave to Esztergom (1256 to 1361) so where is this information from? The national capital moved out of Esztergom by 1256, after the Tatar (mongol) invasion of 1242. So what does the other date refer to? Maybe it is not wise to put the two cities in the same cell, since the date for Esztergom is for certain, but I don't know about Fehérvár. The problem could be that for a brief time the capital was Visegrád, not Buda, but I only read that once, so I'm not sure about that. (HUN)Villy 00:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamesyWamesy - I've undone your revision of Canadian pale. The stripes on the Norfolk Island flag have the ration 7:9:7, so even though it doesn't have a Canadian pale in the stricter definition of the term, it does in the looser sense (which is what it is illustrating on that page)> I've added a little to the text, since it doesn't look like the stripes are different in size on that flag, even though they are. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That "looser description" on the Canadian pale page doesn't seem right to me. Do you have any source for that? JamesyWamesy (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's the one we use over at Flags of the World; unfortunately only the stricter definition is listed at our website (in fact it's very strict, it recommends only using the term on Canadian flags). I'll try to find an actual reference for you. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You wrote: Gerberga of Maine, daughter of Hervé, Count of Maine, and wife of Fulk II of Anjou. The only Hervé Count of Maine seems to be Charivius, a few centuries before. 82.65.103.223 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear James, Thank you very much for all your hard work on the formatting of this page. Did you purposefully intend to change the current policy which lists those not in line (papists etc.) with an asterisk at the beginning of their name? Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are three ways of noting a person skipped in line. The *asterisk, italics, and the ^XP/^XMP/^XI superscripts. Are all three really necessary? In addition, the placement of the asterisk removes the alignment that this format is based on. For example,

1. Person 1
2. *Person 2
3.  Person 3

Person 2 seems to be slightly indented under person 1 as if his child, rather than his sibling. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello James, let me echo what Noel Mcferran says, I very much like the new format it looks really smooth, good job. - dwc lr (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -JamesyWamesy (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear James, I don't know what happened when I changed Windows to Windsor. That was all that I was intending to do, and I can't understand how I managed to undo all the other edits (including your own). It was entirely unintentional, and I apologise for any misunderstanding. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it was an accident. No problem. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert I, Count of Leuven, which you created, has been nominated to be moved to Lambert I, Count of Louvain. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments here. Moonraker (talk) 06:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesy,

I'm interested to know why the complete list of 'Line of succession to the British throne' has been removed as an official Wiki page...

Many thanks,

H3g — Preceding unsigned comment added by H3g (talk • contribs) 03:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't part of the discussion for the deletion. You can see the discussion here, or ask Mlm42. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for keeping the expanded list of the line of succession!! LarryJeff (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Christopher O'Neill, husband of Princess Madeleine of Sweden, is Catholic - disqualifying her from her current position at #229. I'm only basing this on information in his personal article, and the article on their wedding. LarryJeff (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make the change noted above, but I did update with a date of death for Prince Adrian of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (formerly at #319). By all means, if you would rather I didn't make changes, since it is your user page, let me know. Otherwise, I'm glad to help out whenever I can. LarryJeff (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have been making edits on the page already. I appreciate missed additions or removals as long as a comment has been left on reason for editing. All I ask is don't change the formatting. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get your opinion on (I think) an interesting question raised about the position of the current King of Sweden HERE on my talk page. LarryJeff (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your post on the IIHF World Ranking site. I should've notified you before editing, I've just kept being ignored when I've done that lately so I didn't think of it. -- Lejman (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russia has achieved a minimum ranking of 6th since they are certain to be first in their group, if you feel there is value in making that change.18abruce (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I was thinking everyone in the playoffs was just at least 8th place, not thinking about placement after the first 4 are eliminated. Thank you. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Canada and Sweden can only be surpassed by each other and Russia, thus at least 7th place. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well no, latvia or belarus could still get to 15 points and then if 1st and 2nd in b lose, and both canada and sweden lose in the quaterfinals, it remains remotely possible for them to be 8th.18abruce (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thank you again -JamesyWamesy (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KAZ can still come fifth in a five way tie for first with NZL at 0 points. As soon as POL beats KOR, or GBR beats CRO then 4th will be the lowest possible.18abruce (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it was. I left for work shortly after receiving your message so I didn't get to fix it. Ah well, all good now, thanks! -JamesyWamesy (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would mention that since Den, Slo, and Nor all have to play each other, one of them cannot catch USA or RUS.18abruce (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might have been a possibility, but I didn't really have time to do the figuring. If you're certain, be bold and change it, no need to check with me. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess 9–0 is pretty sure with 3 minutes left, but please don't give the USA the ranking points until the game is over.18abruce (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I know. I hit Save by accident, but I wasn't going to bother undoing it. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ya no worries, I think my feed was behind anyway so I apologize.18abruce (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely saved it with about 1 minute to go. I had the online ticker going. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no worries, I live and breathe this stuff and totally missed the different format myself.18abruce (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Very speculative question, so I thought it more appropriate to put it on your talk rather than on the world ranking talk page: What do you think the IIHF will do for the 2018 world rankings in April for the women, particularly in regards to Germany and Czechia? In 2014 they didn't really publicize a new ranking, and they just duplicated the olympic rankings for the eight nations who only played there. This time the absent nations do not match the olymic participants, so will GER and CZE get a duplicate score to their olympic ranking from qualifying, or will they get placed 8th and 9th somehow as place holders because the top 9 don't play this year, or something else? Also, did you notice that the IIHF chose not to alter the Russian Women's 2014 ranking points? I wonder what that really means.18abruce (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking they'll give them the same scores as the Olympic Qualifiers, so CZE 960 & GER 940. But I suppose it makes more sense to give them 8th & 9th place rankings, so CZE 1000 & GER 980. (Last time they had a group of 9, 2007-2009, 9th place was 980 instead of the usual 960). Then the winner of IA gets 940. I guess that's how I'll make the next chart anyway when the Women's WC starts in a couple weeks.

I never even knew about the possibility of RUS's points changing until Simon 1996 was making his messed-up edits. Nor have I really been checking regularly to see if they have changed them. You mentioned they didn't change the women's points; did they change the men's? I don't really care either way, I don't get into the politics of sports. I'll accept whatever changes they make if they do make them.

Just out of curiosity, what's your nationality? -JamesyWamesy (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In regards to the women's rankings it is just the 2014 DQ that was publicized that I was wondering about. The IOC said that they were disqualified, and "requested" that the IIHF modify their results. But there is no evidence that they have. And the updated rankings still score russia as a 6th in 2014. When teams have been DQ'd or been absent in the past, and not at the bottom level, they scored the lowest point total for that tournament. So it would have had very little impact on the rankings, and they still did not do it. Weird. I had forgotten that 9th scored 980 instead of 960 in the past, that makes a lot of sense.

And I am Canadian, I live near Algonquin Park in Eastern Ontario.18abruce (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I just had a thought. One of the main purposes of the ranking is to set the seedings of future championships. Since the 2014 scores no longer affect the current standings, perhaps they aren't bothering to adjust it, as the affected championships are already completed. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• But the 2014 worlds score (until April) does still affect the current standings, and it is only established by duplicating the olympic result. I think it should be footnoted, but I am not sure how yet.18abruce (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, it was the 2014 World's? I thought it was the 2014 Olympics. Ok, scratch that idea. Is there an article regarding this? I'd say footnote the article on the 2014 World's Ranking in the Historical Ranking section. Eg.:

	2011		2012		2013		2014 O		2014		2015		2016		2017
Team	Pts	Rk	Pts	Rk	Pts	Rk	Pts	Rk	Pts	Rk	Pts	Rk	Pts	Rk	Pts	Rk
Russia	2670	5	2650	6	2710	4	2675	5	3715[1]	6	3480	6	3265	4	2970	4

Another user just provided a general note, and I footnoted the current table to try to explain. I hope that works okay.18abruce (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You managed to use an old section to harass me, as well as edit an article, with your own view, while reverting a change and not sourcing it, while the previous change kept and was further improved on by a more respectable registered wikipedia member than you.

In the future, if you'd like to spam people, please create a new section, rather than randomly dropping messages here and there and raging. Also, please source your article edits when controversial or untrue, as wikipedia should be about factuality, not opinion. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:3:7431 (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• First, how is it an old section, the discussion was less than an hour old.
• Second, I am not harassing you, just explaining why the page was made the way it was, and trying to explain your error.
• Third, not my own view, I was backing up 18abruce's view, which I agree.
• Fourth, 18abruce and I have been working on the IIHF World Ranking page together for years now, you don't even have an account. How are you more respectable than me?
• Fifth, you're still not getting the point, that this is an IIHF page, not an Olympic page. According to the IIHF, Russia did participate in the Olympics. They were not banned according to the IIHF. I am fine with leaving the footnote explaining this, but calling them banned on an IIHF page is incorrect.
• Finally, here's your source: IIHF says complete ban of Russian Olympians would put 'health of hockey at risk'-JamesyWamesy (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the previous : amount +1 to respond to messages - unfortunately I had to use two to begin with, as you decided to use * without :. If you look closely at the chat me and 18abruce had, he admitted that he reverted changes due to me not having an account, but had the same stance later on. Whether or not 18abruce asked for your help afterwards, I do not know. Upon closer inspection, you'd also notice that I never talked about myself as a more respectable member, but rather another person who did edits after me. You will also notice that you're considering accounts as something that proves that you're right, whereas that is not the case, but rather just stupidity. Your source doesn't actually relate to the article, as the change was about the Olympic status, which is still determined by IOC, not IIHF. With the edits made, the rating changes by IIHF are in place, but the Olympic results and status (as determined by another organisation) are in place also. You can't be biased about articles. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:3:7431 (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow you're picky, this is a talk page. Who cares about format. Personally I prefer bullets over indents. Anyway...

The article exactly relates to the article. "the IIHF Council... have reached “a unanimous opinion that all clean athletes, including those from Russia, must be permitted to represent their country in the 2018 Olympic Winter Games in Pyeongchang.”" In other words, Russia is not banned by the IIHF! We're not talking about Olympic status, we're talking about IIHF participation in the Olympics. Stop calling my edits vandalism. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the entire Olympic games, then - IIHF saying that Russia "must be permitted to represent their country in the 2018 Olympic Winter Games in Pyeongchang." (a direct quote from you) did not happen. Please get over it. Your edits are vandalism as you're going by information that is not true, and using it to mess up an article. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:3:7431 (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm quoting the Hockey News Article which quotes the IIHF website which quotes a statement from the IIHF Council. IIHF Council meets in Zurich So again: not my view alone, it's the IIHF's view that Russia is not banned in their eyes. The article from NY Times currently in the Wiki article has nothing to do with the IIHF and nothing to do with hockey specifically. How many times must I say this: This Wiki page is not about the Olympics, but the IIHF. You're the one vandalizing the page with your Olympic bias.-JamesyWamesy (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do note that the status that was changed was the Olympic one, which is not controlled by IIHF. Your source had nothing to do with that, as we've seen. As you've already mentioned, you're biased against people who don't have an account, but your source needs to be one that actually changes the Olympic status, even if it's about IIHF rating. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:3:7431 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We're not talking about Olympic status! We're talking about participation. This wiki page has nothing to do with Olympic status. Stop talking about it! I have nothing against you having no account; I have everything against how you can't realize the intention of that column in the chart. Your way, readers will be confused how Russia can have IIHF points when they are banned by the IIHF (who we're talking about here). Instead they will see that the nation, recognized as Russia by the IIHF, participated at the Olympic level, and won so many points at that competition. A footnote will let them understand that although they were banned by the IOC, they still achieved points because THEY ARE NOT BANNED BY THE IIHF.-JamesyWamesy (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing several points here. First of all, you said "you don't even have an account. How are you more respectable than me?" while I never referred to myself - this clearly shows that you have bias towards people with no accounts. Secondly, you seem to misunderstand how the columns work - the points are in place and there's a note by a wiki member to show that the points were counted by the performance by OAR in Russia's place. You've been reverting the Olympic status edit while the current point status shows OAR. The current article is the most accurate one possible. As you've seen from the discussion between me and your edit ally, as determined before your initial message, the situation is a bit confusing, but the current article before your vandalism is accurate, and thus it's been kept as such. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:3:7431 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, that was a misunderstanding on the respectable comment. I apologize. I made that column, so yes, I do understand how it works. I created it to reflect participation level.-JamesyWamesy (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted - I'm going to be off for another year or so probably, as you might've seen from the responses to your friend, but if you're keen on editing the Olympic status column based on your original idea, I'd recommend modifying it to something among the lines of "Playing as OAR" with a source as to why that happened - I don't think that it'd make any difference, though. As said, this is a pretty difficult case, as the Olympic team is not considered as Russia, but at least in women's hockey the points were awarded to Russia by the team (TBD for men). There's bound to be confusion, and the column would have to be either "Banned" or "Playing as OAR" regardless for clarification. I still maintain that "Banned" with OAR as the abbreviation next to the points granted is the clearest option, though. Good luck! 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:3:7431 (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll accept that compromise, "Olympics (as OAR)". The source I had earlier should be enough to explain. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please help me with stopping this anonynous in Russia men's national ice hockey team? What should I do if he undoes my edits with nonsensical comments? Wikisaurus (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• To explain this situation a bit further, the above user is trying to add OAR's gold medal to the Russian national team's page, while it is not officially counted by IOC. He has been trying to sneak the edit in a few times, which I've cleaned up, and ended calling me a russophobe and telling me "go to hell" in Russian via an edit on the article. There's a talk section for this, which can be found here. The OAR victory is already listed on the article ("representing OAR"), but is separate from the medals credited to the Russian team, much like with the EUN results. I'm unsure whether the "representing" bit should even be there. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:3:7431 (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the team page does deserve to show the medal. The nation may not have won a medal, but the team did. It is the same team just under a different name. For example if the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim had won a Stanley Cup, would you refuse to put it on the Anaheim Ducks page? No it's the same team with a different name. While I won't go so far as calling you a Russophobe, a lot of your edits recently seem to be very anti-Russian. You need to lay off the negativity. Let Wikisaurus' edit stand. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamesy, I hope you're doing well. I am a big fan of your 2003-2018 IIHF World Rank Graphic. Thank you for this beautiful work of art !! I have admired it for many years now. Hopefully I am placing this message in the appropriate place. I was wondering if you could please correct a discrepancy on your update from yesterday. The United States is now ranked 4th and Finland 5th per the IIHF website. (http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/championships/world-ranking/mens-world-ranking/2018-ranking-may/) Could you please make this correction to the file. Also, one other trivial item I was hoping you might be able to fix... Can you please bring the US Flag for 2012 to the foreground? It is currently behind the bars of Slovakia in the 2012 column. Hopefully this is an easy fix. Thank you so much for your time and efforts in maintaining this file. Cheers !! 2601:58C:4201:C650:E849:DA23:B1CA:5BAF (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. I had the data right in one part, but it didn't carry over to my chart. Thank you for the heads-up. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised an issue about the expected ranking for 5-8th here. I would appreciate your thoughts since you are rather invested in keeping up the rankings.18abruce (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Duchess Donata of Mecklenburg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duchess Donata of Mecklenburg until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.   // Timothy :: talk  05:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What software did you use to create the IIHF World Ranking graph? It hasn't been updated for a while 37.136.199.194 (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Excel. I'll update it after the Olympics are done. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 2011, Finland and Sweden should be swapped. They were tied on ranking score, but Finland won that year Also, 2022O is mistyped as 2020O Anonymous7002 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Applying that rule, Czechia and Switzerland should also be swapped in 2022 Anonymous7002 (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, I'll get those fixed -JamesyWamesy (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• One minor fix: In 2014O: Canada and Russia should be swapped Anonymous7002 (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you once again. Can't believe I missed so many. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you did so well at catching my errors on the men's graph, can you take a look at the women's please? File:IIHF Women's World Ice Hockey Ranking.png -JamesyWamesy (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2020, number 10 should be France Anonymous7002 (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah yes, thank you once again. Corrected. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have some doubts about what is presented there. If you look back to years when teams were disqualified or did not participate, they still received ranking points (Japan and North Korea in 2011, russian women Olympics 2014).18abruce (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• North Korea did not receive ranking points for withdrawing of their own decision in 2011, nor did Mongolia. As you see on List of IIHF World Rankings, PRK fell from 730 points in 2010 to 485 in 2011. Japan received points because they withdrew due to the extenuating circumstances of the earthquake and tsunami - circumstances that affected primarily their nation only, therefore the IIHF awarded them points. And the Russian women did compete in the 2014 Olympics, not sure what you mean by that. So I would say I listed the withdrawn teams correctly, unless the IIHF rules that AUS/NZL/PRK/HKG/PHI are in the same category as the Japanese earthquake which I doubt, since COVID has affected all the other nations too and the rest chose to participate. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• North Korea also withdrew in 2007 as did Armenia, and both received 0 points then as well. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh yes, I remember the 2014 Olympic women's disqualification now. We talked about this previously on my talk page, and we were surprised that RUS kept their ranking points. I believe it was established that the disqualification was recognized by the Olympics only, not by the IIHF. But even so, I don't think a disqualification instated 4 years after a tournament based on individuals within a team can be looked at as precedent for an expulsion of a team before a tournament begins. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes thank you, I did not look closely enough at PRK. I looked into the Russian Olympic women a little more closely and it is too hard to tell for sure what the IIHF stance is. They officially modified their documentation to show the team as disqualified in 2019 when it no longer could affect their ranking. I don't know if they ever modified the historical ranking, and really don't know how to check. I guess I believed that some of the withdrawals would fall into the same class as Japan in 2011, there were issues with the Philippines not having an ice surface at all because of covid issues so they could not practice (or fulfill minimum participation standards either for that matter). If they do indeed give Russia a zero in the ranking that will make it impossible for them to avoid the qualification rounds for the next Olympics. I still have doubts that they will stick to this, but it is logical as you have presented it.18abruce (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be updating this document? I know it’s a large process. With the cut down version, there’s a lot of people in the list who are no longer included such as descendants down the Mountbatten Line. I quite enjoyed referencing the Line of Succession. Davidgr144 (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been wanting to, but haven't had the time lately. You or anyone else are more than welcome to edit it yourselves. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for all your work on the page. I am not sure about Turkey though; they withdrew because of the earthquake and were exempt from relegation so it is hard to imagine that they will not receive ranking points.18abruce (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I didn't look into the reasoning for their withdrawal. You're probably right. I will grant them 6th place points. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]