Talk:House of Dlamini

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Africa / Eswatini (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eswatini (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Untitled[edit]

It is possible this is a copyvio - just tell us where from first ? Wizzy 14:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A quick google finds these sites :-

But I think the second is probably a wikipedia copy. The uqconnect.net site seems genuine.

I think there is a good case for deleting this page - it sprang into life as (possibly) a siterip of the first link above. Comments ?

this edit seems to be the copyvio. There are some small differences, like Paramount Chief instead of Ngwenyama, but otherwise is a straight rip. The original has indentation for issue - that (important) information is lost on this page, which I think makes a good case for a copyvio. I will delete that edit now. Wizzy 12:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem here is that dynastic genealogies will necessarily include almost the exact same info since they are really lists of people plus minimal biographical data (birth & death dates, spouses, titles, etc), so the only thing that distinguishes them is the format. "Facts" cannot be copyrighted, so if the format of the genealogical facts differs (and often even if it doesn't), any allegation of copyvio must be demonstrated & discussed. But the deleter refuses to state the source he asserts is being copyvio'd. I'm restoring until he does so & engages. PlayCuz (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone objects to similarities in different authors' renditions of family trees, they need to indicate what changes in format would be needed to not be plagiarism in your eyes? You can't require that the same information can't be used since the genealogy of any family will be the same no matter which author maps it out. I'll try to modify the format if I can get feedback on what changes would suffice. FactStraight (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reverter Royalty2012 refuses to acknowledge that since first alleging copyright infringement and then summary deletion, a reliable source for at least some of the information challenged has been added as a citation, and some edits have been made. Ignoring an offer to make further edits to ensure compliance with copyright, s/he continues to summarily revert claiming that s/he has unilaterally determined that the only solution s/he will accept is complete article deletion. S/he refuses to address my point that in a genealogical table, format may be subject to copyright, but the facts which constitute the overwhelmingly bulk of the article are not and cannot be copyrighted. Requests to specify what types of alterations would be acceptable are ignored and reverting continues. I believe that Royalty2012 does not wish to help bring the article into copyright compliance, but wishes to delete the genealogical facts contained therein as though they were his/her personal property. My offer to work with the reverter to improve the article stands. FactStraight (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be deleted[edit]

This page was completely deleted once before for copyright infringement. It seems to be back, probably placed here by the same copyright thief as before. It is indeed a copy of the whole webpage with the header and footer removed. The sources stated almost certainly doesn't have the information as shown on the wiki page. It is theft plain and simple. The basic information is augmented with original research as well as contributions from members of the Swazi Royal Family. It is upsetting to me to see it copied wholesale (for the second time). Please delete this wiki page (again). Royalty2012 (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

had issue[edit]

The phrase had issue is repeated throughout this page. What does it mean?--Derek Andrews (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

issue can be defined here as "offspring" or "progeny". [1] Mattmeiners (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

could someone link this info to the Maseko Ngonis of Malawi.......something is missing (Njaya waNjaya: Italy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.221.98.31 (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

Edit warring[edit]

The current edit war needs to end and be resolved here on the talk page per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Failure to do so will result in a report to WP:AN3. We might also need to go to WP:CP to resolve the copyright issue, but I hope we can resolve the matter here.

This debate seems to go back a long way. Perhaps we can start by asking User:Royalty2012 can reiterate where the copyvio stems from? --Derek Andrews (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for intervening. Now let's see if Royalty2012 responds to your and my requests to discuss on this talk page how to improve the article by incorporating relevant facts into the text in a format s/he will not revert as a copy vio. FactStraight (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears that FactStraight has just reverted the article in contravention of wikipedia guidelines. I am at a disadvantage in not being familiar with wiki markup, but until FactStraight stops reverting, dialogue appears pointless as he clearly is not interested in consensus. As mentioned this is an ongoing issue from 2009, the webpage was (to be) deleted for copyvio but it reappeared unbeknownst to me.--Royalty2012 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing guarantees that your preferred version of the article remains intact except securing consensus with other contributors to the article. You have been requested several times to identify specifically what changes in format you consider acceptable for eliminating the copy vio you claim (but have not proved) has occurred, while retaining the genealogical facts which are not subject to copyright. For several days your preferred version of the article remained intact and you were twice invited to make suggestions for a compromise. You remained silent until reverted. Heretofore you have shown no willingness to work collaboratively toward improvement of the article. I ask and hope that you will now do so.FactStraight (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FactStraight seems to accept that the current article has a problem and yet in the 4 or 5 years that he has had it on his watchlist, he has not made any attempt to improve the article. Please note that the article is a member of 12 different categories and the most sensible course of action is to delete the article and let FactStraight build the new article from scratch, using the sources that he has provided. I will start the ball rolling by reverting his last edit and we'll see if he is serious in improving the article.--Royalty2012 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite frankly I think the whole article needs to totally revamped. I notice that I came across it 5 years ago and added cleanup and confusing tags, and despite many edits in the meantime those comments still hold true. The long lists of offspring make little sense to me; I can't figure out if there is any logic to the layout - it doesn't appear to be chronological or alphabetical. Given the the size of the families, I can see little point in listing all the offspring, at least not in this article.
My recommendation is to make a chronological list of the kings, using a subhead for each. The text of each should then list date of birth and death, and period of his reign. Notable children should be commented upon, ie if they succeed him, become prime minister, marry into another royal family etc. Long lists of his children, if anyone thinks this information is worth keeping, should go on a separate page, ie "List of the children of King xxx".--Derek Andrews (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this, in fact that was my very first attempt at editing back in 2009, to start with a list of the rulers, and then children to be added later. However a bot reverted the article since the size went down considerably and it considered it vandalism. Subsequent smaller edits were reverted by PlayCuz aka FactStraight--Royalty2012 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-European dynasties often practice polygamy, perfectly legally. In none of the articles on other reigning dynasties (and that is what this is) do their Wikipedia articles omit known, recent members of the dynasty, or apply a standard of selectivity to them determined by Wikipedian contributors in an article about the dynasty (rather than about its individual members). There's a rational reason for that: A dynasty is the group of individuals in a ruling family, while lists of rulers is a different kind of article, one that Royalty2012 is free to initiate any time. But instead he has been trying to delete this article since 2009 (under various accounts, always stopping short of admitting that he is the author of the website article he claims has been plagiarized), but it has never been deleted because it is as noteworthy as any other article on a reigning dynasty. I have added sourced information and repeatedly asked for his assistance in building a better article which he has consistently ignored, while creating an account exclusively dedicated to gouging out this article's content rather than improving it, refusing to address the point that facts cannot be copyrighted. That's ownership and Wikipedia doesn't tolerate it. Suggestions for improved format changes to reflect the dynastic facts of these royals' lives are and have always been solicited and welcome -- but for that one must be interested in building articles here, otherwise there is no commitment to improve Wikipedia. FactStraight (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me state categorically that I have no problem with recording the offspring of polygamy, nor any other political or social motive. All I want is to create a useful, stable and verifiable article. Like I said above, I have no problem with including all members (subject to verifiabilty); I just think that given the numbers of them, they should be moved to another article so that this one can concentrate on giving readers a clearer understanding of the bigger picture. As for the copyright issue, I have asked several times what website this stems from and not got an answer. Earlier on the talk page two webpages are listed, but neither seem to be working right now, so I have to question if they are reliable enough to use as a source.--Derek Andrews (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I see your point now. That article already exists under the name List of Kings of Swaziland. As mentioned, for every reigning dynasty Wikipedia has at least (often more) two articles: one on the rulers, one on the members. This article is the latter. FactStraight (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So how do we proceed from here? The biggest issue I see with this article is the need to format it into some logical order rather than squabbling over its completeness and copyright, though I'm not prepared to spend much time trying to rescue this article if it is going to be deleted. Does FactStraight have access to the references?--Derek Andrews (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nor am I inclined to re-create the article in a different format if its deletion will be pursued regardless -- which is why I have repeatedly sought an agreement on how to re-format in a way that is mutually satisfactory. Burke's, which I added as a cite, has six pages on this dynasty and includes most of those mentioned in this article, but stops after 1980. The format there is similar to that in the current article and to every online genealogy I've seen on this family. I'm searching for updates, but more recent info is mostly contained in scattered articles -- a kinship and name here, a birthdate there, a spouse elsewhere. I'm willing to work toward that end if that effort won't be wasted. What about a tag calling for more sourcing so long as new cites are added going forward? FactStraight (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have access to Burkes? Does its format at least present the information in some sort of logical order? Do you agree with me that this is necessary in an encyclopaedic article to avoid it becoming an meaningless list of names? --Derek Andrews (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He doesn't have access to Burke's, because if he did, then the article would be quite clear. He simply copied my webpahe holus bolus, formatting, style, original research, mistakes and all. That, as far as i am concerned, is a copyright violation. The article needs to be redone using the sources FactStraight has claimed to have used. Note that he doesn't want to put any work into the article, he just wants to use mine.--Royalty2012 (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the article doesn't "need to be redone using the sources FactStraight has claimed to have used" since all I did was re-insert information removed without explanation as to the source and nature of the alleged copyvio, adding to that, only recently, what Burke documents. The article needs to be edited, not re-commenced from naught, based on the sources Wikipedia contributors, including Royalty2012, can tap to ensure that it is accurate, comprehensive and not subject to a copyvio charge that renders all efforts at improvement futile. Only Royalty2012 can tell us what he'll accept in that regard. But he seems to be laboring under the false assumptions that I have some greater input into this article and some greater responsibility for it than he has, whereas we are both contributors here, welcome to edit Wikipedia only so long as what we do improves it -- nor am I the original editor who inserted the info to which he objects. 2. Burke includes substantially the same genealogical info (how else could it be?), within dates covered, as the article now contains, whether that info be sourced to Burke, to Christopher Buyers' Royal Ark or to Henry Soszynski's World of Royalty: names, titles, birth/marriage/death dates and kinships of members of the dynasty, because that is largely the stuff of which articles on dynasties (as distinct from individual dynasts) are made. The solution is collaborative editing, tapping the sources each of us can access. FactStraight (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't know where to go from here. I don't have access to any printed sources. A cursory comparison with World of Royalty suggests that much of what we have here has been lifted directly from there, or that both used the source. Even the section heading is the same which I find suspicious. However it does seem to be a referenced and a reliable source. The information that Royalty2012 wants removed is listed there, so I propose that we reference that section of the article to World of Royalty. If Royalty2012 insists on ownership of the copyright, then he or she must use WP:CPI, though I'm still waiting to be told where there alleged copyvio stems from. Having said that I still believe that this whole article is a copyright nightmare, notwithstanding FactStraight's point about it being genealogical information and only the layout is subject to copyright, though I feel inclined to seek wider consensus on this issue.--Derek Andrews (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are correct when you say that this entire article has been lifted from WoR (without any attribution), and that's where the problem lies. It's a copyvio because FactStraight has lifted the entire webpage without any changes. Even the reference for Prince Makhosini Dlamini points to a link on the WoR page. This article (even though it doesn't list WoR as a source) is immediately obvious as a copy and is therefore a copyvio, because it has my websites look, style, formatting and even mistakes, all of which can ansd should be protected under copyright laws. FactStraight knows where to go, to copy data but is unable to make changes or corrections and reverts everything I do. It's probably time to use WP:CPI, Blatant infringement section, though I'm reluctant to initiate this without more information and guidance.--Royalty2012 (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you saying that you are the author/owner of WoR? I have been trying to establish throughout this whole discussion where this copyright problem stems from with no success. If it is your copyright, and it is not in itself a direct copy from Burke's, then I would say you have reason to file a complaint. What more information and guidance do you feel you need? --Derek Andrews (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct, it is the successor website to Genealogical Gleanings at a new ISP (IINET) since the old one (uqconnect) no longer wanted to cater for its alumni. Burke's is a major source for the information there but since 1985 (publication date of Burke's) there's obviously been major changes which incorporate mainly private research. There's no easy way to separate Burke's data which is quite rudimentary from my additional data, that's why I would prefer that the article starts from scratch using Burke's as the basis for the data, then I would have no cause for complaint. Biographical details apart from dates can be under copyright since that is in effect my creation. It's a grey area and that's why I need more guidance. The article as it stands is 99% mine, even though I use data that isn't copyright on its own. I'm not sure if I've been clear enough but it's the best I can do. Cheers. --Royalty2012 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have sought assistance at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Seeking_assistance--Derek Andrews (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that was a good call, Derek Andrews. I believe that either you or Royalty2012 would have been fully justified in blanking the article and listing it at WP:CP. For cases where copyright is suspected but not fully confirmed, there's also {{Cv-unsure}}. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've come here from Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Seeking_assistance. The first thing to say is that this edit war has to stop. Blatant copyright violation is a defence against edit warring but I don't think this is blatant enough to invoke this (see more in a bit). Regardless of whether you think it is a blatant copyvio or not when someone disagrees with you that much the course of action is to seek outside opinions not to carry of reverting. User:Royalty2012 and User:FactStraight you are both on a very short leash, any more reverting and you will be blocked for edit warring, even if you don't break WP:3RR.

As for the issue of copyright violation I note that User:Justlettersandnumbers has just reverted the additions for copyright violation and left a notice before. However I'm very far from certain that there is a copyright violation here. We operate under US law and in the US basic facts are not copyrightable and there is also has to be a creative element to attract copyright protection. As pointed out above lists such as this will by their nature have a very similar structure and so I don't think the layout of this list attracts copyright protection. Pinging User:Moonriddengirl for another opinion on this.

That said even if it's not copyrightable I'm not sure the list is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in it's current state for many of the reasons outlined above - the lack of context for example. If it is included then we should be attributing where we got it from even if it's not a copyvio. I suspect the best course of action at this time is to leave it as it now is until these issues are settled. Dpmuk (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Dpmuk! Another opinion would be good. Mine, for what it is worth, is that while the bulk of list was just data, there were also bits of running text that had definitely been copied, warts and all, from the source. But I'm perfectly willing to be shown that I'm wrong about that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd agree that that's a little bit of a concern but that could probably just be dealt with just by removing that text. As I say I'm still not convinced we need such a list in that format in wikipedia and if the format's changed that would almost definitely get rid of copyvio concerns. The main reason I'm somewhat opposed to removing it unless we have to is that it could form the basis for an article. Dpmuk (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. :) I think it's a little bit of both. Facts are not copyrightable (although selection of facts might be). A list of facts that would be the same no matter who published it is not creative enough to attract protection. Hence, the list of rulers or a family line is not itself at issue. But the formatting may be a creative element if it is not purely formulaic and the text certainly can be. For instance, this easily clears creativity: "HRH Prince Phiwokwakhe Dlamini (by Manoni), served as both Swaziland's health and labour minister, later as a palace-appointed parliamentarian, and most recently as a member of King Mswati's panel of advisors, the Swazi National Council, he married and had issue. He died 12th January 2004 in Durban, buried 31st January 2004." There are shorter runs scattered throughout.
From the standpoint of copyright, that source can certainly be used to create a retainable list, but the list should be stripped to the facts and, if possible, presented originally. For instance, in a family tree as at House of Windsor or truncated down like House of Windsor#List of monarchs of the House of Windsor or in a table that replicates the basic information without lifting the text and structure of the original. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I obviously skimmed it too quickly and missed some of the longer runs. Most of the runs I'll spotted where shorter than that and in most cases "had issue" or similar which is probably too formalistic to be a problem. Thanks for the input - this is one of those ones where I thought I may have missed something and so appreciated the extra eyes. Dpmuk (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When the chunk is that big, it can be easy to overlook. :) I think it's probably not that difficult a fix, although to tell you the truth I find the website's presentation a bit confusing. Otherwise, I might have tried it myself, at least to start something. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Couldn't agree more, hence my comment below wondering whether there's is any creativity in the list's ordering - I suspect it's unlikely but the website is so confusing I can't be sure. Dpmuk (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks to both Dpmuk and the indefatigable Moonriddengirl for clarifying where the line lies, most helpful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20070430110927/http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/states/southafrica/swaziland.html (as archived on 30 April 2007). Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just in case there is any remaining doubt about this, please note details such as the spelling mistake "Sishelweni Districy" (for "Sishelweni District"), faithfully copied here on 17 August 2007, and clearly visible on the source page on 30 April of that year. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that this is very unlikely to be a copyvio despite obviously being copied. See my comments in the section above. Dpmuk (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. First of all, I think you'll find that Royal Ark's article ("suppressed" at the moment) contained the same info and format on the House of Dlamini as World of Royalty, both derived much of their data and format from Burke's Royal Families of the World II, and it is not obvious which of them did what, when. That fact (and other potential sources) have been omitted every time the copyvio charge has been raised, which edit summaries show is why it was repeatedly reverted. Secondly, Royalty2012 says, above: "Burke's is a major source for the information there but since 1985 (publication date of Burke's) there's obviously been major changes which incorporate mainly private research. There's no easy way to separate Burke's data which is quite rudimentary from my additional data, that's why I would prefer that the article starts from scratch using Burke's as the basis for the data, then I would have no cause for complaint. Biographical details apart from dates can be under copyright since that is in effect my creation." This has always been the crux of the issue: Royalty2012 has sought to apply a standard for copyvio prevalent in Australia where, indeed, facts may be copyrighted. But under the USA law to which Wikipedia adheres, facts may not be copyrighted. And as Royalty2012 also acknowledged above, "There's no easy way to separate Burke's data" on the World of Royalty website or in this article, but there is and has always been a much easier way to resolve this specific problem: Therefore I requested that Royalty101 stipulate what kinds of changes to format he would accept as terminating the copyvio complaint, before undertaking what would be substantial work to edit an article whose comprehensive accuracy I bear no more responsibility for than he does (the original insertion of the material was done 17 August 2007 here, and not by me. I've simply objected to near total deletion without explanation of the copyvio, finally offered for the first time today). He has and does consistently refuse, saying that any "facts" he has contributed are also banned from use by Wikipedia, but since this won't fly, he deletes virtually all and demands that Wikipedia start the article from scratch, while he reserves the right, after that work is done, to delete "biographical facts" he says he's contributed and therefore owns. Now that you're all up to date on the underlying problem, good luck! FactStraight (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, FactStraight, that biographical facts cannot be owned under the US copyright law that governs us; we do not recognize "Sweat of the brow." Anybody is free to use facts regardless of who discovered them. Just have to recast them. See Wikipedia:Copyright in lists for more general information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)Given that the statement that facts aren't copyrightable is in one of our guidelines (see Wikipedia:PD#Non-creative_works) and that this has now been pointed out by at least three separate users (me, you and Moonriddengirl) I'd consider any further removal of information by Royalty2012 based purely on this ground to be disruptive and would likely quickly lead to a block if they continued to do so. That said as pointed out above the page before it was blanked had some issues, for example the long lines of copied text that goes beyond facts. It's also not immediately clear what order the list was in (so it's possible but unlikely there was a creative element in it's ordering). For those reasons I think it would be unwise to restore the pre-existing version as it without some modifications but if those modifications were made it would clearly not be a copyvio and so couldn't be removed for copyvio reasons. Whether it would be suitable for a wikipedia article is a separate issue. Dpmuk (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe it might also be appropriate to remind FactStraight that repeatedly adding material back to the wiki after being advised that it could be a copyright violation might also be construed as disruptive.
Because of the passing accusation of WP:Sockpuppetry above, I've opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlayCuz. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which came up as confirmed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rebuilding the page[edit]

I am thankful that the page was finally cleaned up. I will contribute whenever I can. A useful source that I will use is the James Stuart Archive and a few books on Swazi History. The list of the royal family members can never be complete, it can be restricted however to include the king, queen mother and the prominent princes and princesses. The children of the princes are considered princes but they are not eligible to inherit the crown. Because of this they fall largely outside of the main royal family. -- Ludvonga (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you.--Derek Andrews (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy to contribute in any way possible. My thoughts are in unison with Ludvonga, many thanks.Royalty2012 (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Referencing[edit]

I thought I'd have a quick go at finding suitable references for the information already supplied. I've also had a quick rework of the content. It could do with some major expansion, but I think this is much better than it was previously. Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I've added a 'royal house' infobox to the page, which is consistent with the pages for other royal houses. Most of the information has been left blank as I'm not sure on the facts. I've also added a picture of Mswati III and not the royal arms of the king, which seems to be the norm for the infobox, because I'm not overly sure what they are. Sotakeit (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now updated the image to the coat of arms of Swaziland, assuming that being an absolute monarchy these would also be that of the king/royal house. Sotakeit (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, the Swazi royal family (unfortunately) does not have a separate coat of arms. Ludvonga (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Dlamini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]