Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page move: Katherine, Crown Princess of Yugoslavia to Katherine Karađorđević

Please review the following page move:[1]

Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Katherine Karađorđević#Not even her courtesy title is "Crown Princess". Verbcatcher (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

John III, Duke of Mecklenburg-Stargard

Anyone able to help with this one I found via Special:Random.

Not an expert on this area of history, but it needs some cleanup; any editors willing to work with me to make this a bit better than it is now? --Easteary861 (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Clemens Salvator, Prince of Altenburg

Can anyone help me source the draft for Clemens Salvator, Prince of Altenburg? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The current content is 100% genealogical, so even if sourced the article would be a good candidate for deletion per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. --JBL (talk) JBL (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with JBL. It's just genealogy at this point. Did the prince do anything notable, or contribute to society in any way? With just a cursory Google search, I didn't find much, but it would likely be in German in and magazines or books because of the time period. He's namechecked in Burke's Royal Families of the World: Africa & the Middle East on page 313 here, but I can't see the preview and it's likely, again, just genealogy. He also appears in The Book of Kings: The royal houses on page 372 here, but that only states who his father is.
When I searched just "Clemens Salvator" 1904, he's listed in a lot of German genealogical entries, but I don't see any analysis about him or even a mention of what he does. --Kbabej (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the above commentors - in a good article the respective sizes of the 'Life' and 'Family' sections will be the reverse of what they are in this draft. As it stands this is a family tree article shoehorned onto a biographical stub, and no amount of additional biographical information would justify that much genealogy - someone has to be incredibly important (e.g. a reigning monarch, or p/matriarch of a kindred with a substantial number of people with Wikipedia pages) to give a complete accounting of their descendants down to their great-grandchildren, and he just isn't that important. Agricolae (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

RM at Queen of Ghana

A move discussion about many articles is open at Talk:Queen of Ghana#Requested move 7 June 2022. Please comment there to generate a clear consensus. Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 08:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

RM at Sultan bin Abdulaziz

A move discussion about many articles is open at Talk:Sultan bin Abdulaziz#Requested move 19 May 2022. Please comment there to generate a clear consensus. Thanks. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on AfD for Carina, Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg

An AfD discussion is ongoing about Carina, Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg. The discussion until now has primarily focused on if she meets the notability guidelines as an author. However, she is the wife of Gustav, 7th Prince of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg and I was hoping some editors here with experience in determining notability for members of royal families could share their views on if this subject meets notability guidelines. Thanks.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC at List of longest-reigning monarchs

Would appreciate input at Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs#Request for comment on Elizabeth duality, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Should Earl and Jarl be split?

Please comment at Talk:Earl#Split article? to give your opinion on whether text on the Scandinavian jarl should be moved to Jarl (title), which currently redirects to Earl. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Should we change the 14 redirects, concerning the non-UK Commonwealth realms successions to the thrones

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we do the following:

GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey

  • A - would be my first choice, as the 14 non-UK successions are the same as the UK succession. My second choice would be C, though. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • None This is a bizarre proposal. There isn't enough content to fill 14 separate articles specifically on royal succession in each non-British Commonwealth Realm. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Which 'current' redirects, would you suggest for being made into their own pages or redirects to their own monarchy pages? GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't suggest anything about redirects. I don't have time to do the research into what redirects exist and where they go, let alone determine from outside research what information there is on succession to thrones other than the Canadian one. I'm too busy dealing with the multiple fires you start all over the place just related to the Canadian monarchy or the Realms, in general. If there's enough info to fill an article, make an article. If it's fine just as a section of an article, leave it there. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Do you recommend I abort this RFC, until you & TFD can figure out what you both want to do? GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Per WP:RFCBEFORE: RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. ... Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. Per WP:RFCNOT: What not to use the RfC process for ...Renaming pages. --JBL (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree. But this involves 14 redirects & there's no re-naming involved. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Note: the page Succession to the British throne will remain in its current form, of course. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title conventions for rulers of Mali Empire

I have been working on revising the articles on rulers of the Mali Empire, which often have inconsistently structured titles, and I believe it would be a good idea to try and reach some kind of consensus about what format is preferable. This seems to be the most appropriate WikiProject at which to have this discussion. There are seven different naming conventions that were in use before I started working on these articles (I have already requested moves for some of these, so the titles are not necessarily the same now):

Though it's not relevant to this discussion, note that many of the spellings here need revision (e.g. Kassa is a non-standard transcription of قسا (Qasā), which is one of several manuscript variants along with قنبا (Qanbā) for the same name).

Sunjata and Mansa Musa are well-known enough to be subject to WP:COMMONNAME, but it would be useful to have a standardized format to favor when COMMONNAME doesn't clearly apply and a bare name+ordinal isn't clear enough. "Mansa [name]" is preferable to "[name] (mansa)" as the more natural disambiguation, and the postpositive "[name] Mansa" appears to be inaccurate. It doesn't seem clear if it's appropriate to use "[name] Keita" in most cases, and it wouldn't work for the usurpers Sākūra and Ṣandakī. "[name] ibn [father]" might be practical in some cases (e.g. Muḥammad ibn Qū and Qanbā ibn Sulaymān) but would be inappropriate in some cases (e.g. "Khalīfa ibn Mārī Jāṭa" would be a made-up, speculative name, and Sulaymān ibn Abī Bakr is rarely used) and impossible in others (e.g. Sākūra, whose father is unknown).

This leaves "[name] of Mali" and "Mansa [name]" as the two best name formats I can think of. Despite WP:NCROY saying that regnal titles are not usually included in article titles, I think that an exception should be made in this case, as nearly every mansa of Mali is often referred to as "Mansa [name]", whereas the format "[name] of Mali" is somewhat of an invention of our own to fit title conventions. As such, I propose that article titles on rulers of the Mali Empire should consistently take the format "Mansa [name]" unless a different name is clearly preferable.

One final note is that I'm not sure how appropriate the use of ordinals is here, as they seem to be only intermittently used by historians and are not present in the primary sources. What's the policy around here for applying ordinals to monarchs in societies where they were not traditionally used?

Does anyone here have any thoughts or suggestions on this matter? Pinging Doug Weller and Catjacket, both of whom I have interacted with previously on topics pertaining to the Mali Empire, and I'm going to leave notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mali as well. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ancillary to this discussion, I think Kassi (wife of Suleyman of Mali) needs to be renamed for several reasons, but I'm not sure of the best way to do it either. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey! Late reply, sorry, thanks for the shoutout. I think Mansa [name] works great. However, why do you think [name] Mansa is inaccurate? From my experience w/ Mande languages word order is pretty flexible so if sources (historians or primary) tend to refer to, say, Sakoura as "Sakoura Mansa" then we should mirror that. If not then we default to Mansa [name].
Ordinals may not be common in the sources, but we do need to distinguish between the different Maghans and Ulis. So I would propose using Mansa Maghan I, Mansa Mahmud III etc.
In all cases, any alternative names need to be listed at the top of the article even if we make the article titles more uniform. Catjacket (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for responding! Nearly all sources I've read seem to use the order "Mansa [name]", except for one primary source: al-Umari, who called Musa "Musa Mansa". Perhaps inaccurate is not strictly the right word, but it's clearly nonstandard. As far as I can tell, neither "Sakoura Mansa" nor "Sakura Mansa" has ever been used in a reliable source.
As an aside note, the primary sources use the spelling Magha (Arabic: مغا, romanized: Maghā), not Maghan—the use of the latter spelling seems to be based on the interpretation that the name is connected to the title maghan, which may or may not be the case. The spelling Magha seems to be more commonly used in reliable sources than Maghan, in any case.
It's not entirely clear how accurate most of the ordinals are, as the list of mansas is incomplete and there is sometimes ambiguity over whether two figures have the same name or not. I suppose it would make sense to use them for title disambiguation purposes, but I'm not sure using the ordinals in the body of the text is appropriate—as noted, reliable sources rarely use them, and they're often questionable. So, for instance, I would be inclined to begin the page on Magha III with "Mansa Magha, also known as Mahmud..." rather than "Mansa Magha III, also known as Mahmud I..."
What alternate names do you think need to be listed at the top of the article? Ornithopsis (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Re-targeting, non-UK succession to the throne redirects

See discussion here. Input would be welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment Louis X

There is an ongoing discussion about the first sentence of Louis X of France, in its talk page. Your input is appreciated. Thinker78 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Titles & Styles

Shutting, down as a similiar RFC opened up at Prince William's page. A more appropriate place. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've noticed in a few "Titles & Styles" sections of bios, that there's at times inconsistencies on the dates. Most recently disputes have occurred at William, Prince of Wales & Prince George of Wales, for example. So, how do we handle this? I think Prince William's bio would be a good focal point, given the multiple changes he's went through on September 8 & 9, 2022.

Do we use end dates for titles, when a 'higher' title has been proclaimed? or do we continue to show the lower titles as continuing to be used?

Note: The Scottish titles/styles are not being disputed, in term of their dates. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

If I can offer a comment, part of the confusion seems to stem from the fact that these sections cover both titles and styles, so it is unclear if the bulleted list in many of them is supposed to show the titles or styles of the person in question. In the case of British royals titles generally last until death or the person in question becomes monarch and so don't have an end date until that occurs, but styles can change as higher titles 'supersede' lower ones and therefore have an end date.
I am involved in the editing of some of the articles in question so won't comment further, but if this request could also consider whether these sections should be separated or otherwise clarified I would appreciate that. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
No objections to said sections being separated or clarified. Your help in clarifying the matter, is most welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Example:

  • A - Duke of Cambridge, 2011 to 2022
    Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, 2022
    Prince of Wales, 2022 to present
    or
  • B - Duke of Cambridge, 2011 to present
    Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, 2022 to present
    Prince of Wales, 2022 to present
    or
  • C - Duke of Cambridge, 2011 to present
    Duke of Cornwall, 2022 to present
    Prince of Wales, 2022 to present

Survey3

  • In complicated situations, avoid misleading and over-simplistic tables. Explain the situation in prose. DrKay (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion3

Comment:(Summoned by bot) As far as the content goes, I think the point A.D. Hope raises above is the most germane bit of feedback: these sections might in general benefit from a streamlined explanation of precisely the distinction A.D. raises.

However, on a more procedural ground, I want to remind everyone here that RfCs hosted at WikiProjects are very problematic: per WP:Advice pages, and multiple additional policies and ArbCom rulings, decisions generated at WikiProjects are not considered guiding consensus: you will still have to get WP:LOCALCONSENSUS every time there is a dispute about this crops up in the future, and you won't be able to point back to this discussion as project-wide consensus, as that is not permitted. In order to get consensus that can be cited on multiple articles in case of future disputes, this discussion should be taking place on the relevant MoS page. Or if, no relevant section exists, have a discussion on the talk page for a broader MoS subpage where this guidance might fit. Or last resort, make a WP:PROPOSAL to create and appropriate guideline.

In any event, definitely do not edit war over any decision reached in this discussion here, or treat any consensus here as more than advisory, because WikiProjects are not meant to be creating generalized rules and then trying to apply them to all articles perceived to be in their purview. This doesn't work for a lot of reasons, chief among them that different WikiProjects would come up for different rules for article that might be covered by the topics of both, and then there would be argument as to which rules took priority. Which is why we host discussions about content and style guidance in centralized documents like WP:PAG and WP:MoS. That's why it's better to start discussions like this on talk pages for those pages, not on WikiProjects. I'm not suggesting shutting down this discussion if there are unlikely to be disputes about this once a decision is reached, but its still probably better to move this to an MoS talk page. SnowRise let's rap 02:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Jumping from one bio talkpage to another bio talkpage, in hopes of bringing consistency, is too long a process. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the comprehensive advice, I've begun a new RfC at William, Prince of Wales as a result.
I'm not that familiar with how this project organises itself, do I need to manually publicise the RfC somewhere here, or is it added to the project page list automatically? Thank you :) A.D.Hope (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is going on with this page?

Why are the houses of York and Lancaster listed as Italian and Hungarian houses? EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Reign of Elizabeth II

Please note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reign of Elizabeth II. DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Al-Muti FAC

The article on the Abbasid caliph al-Muti has been submitted for Featured Article. All interested editors are invited to participate. Constantine ✍ 18:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

List of rulers named X

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before;

Should there be more pages of lists of rulers from different countries with the same name even if they don't all have the same title (ie. King, Duke etc)?

We already have a few: Henry, Leopold, Robert, Rhun.

Should there be more, maybe for more common names like; Louis, George, William? WiltedXXVI (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Which emperor? Can it be both?

We're trying to identify a statue at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Constantine_or_Federico_II_Hohenstaufen?, if you have knowledge. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani#Requested move 25 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani#Requested move 25 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That probably was cryptic... why do we care about that? This RM involves about 50 state funeral articles, including at least one that is related to this WP. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

AfC Submission: Succession to the Italian throne

Thought I'd request a review of Draft:Succession to the Italian throne. The article is a translation of the Italian WP equivalent. - JTF2020 (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This is way, way too detailed, sourced to too many primary sources (like law decrees, announcements from the former royal house, and interviews), is basically a coatrack for utterly UNDUE post-1946 familial succession disputes, and the community is not likely to accept a page on a topic that largely recreates a deleted page. JoelleJay (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
There's no such throne (since 1946), to begin with. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Prince Octavius of Great Britain FA Review

Hello, all! I submitted Prince Octavius of Great Britain for a FA review a few weeks ago, but unfortunately, it has not seen a lot of engagement from users. If y'all could take a look at the nomination and give your thoughts and support, I would appreciate it! Don't worry, its not a long read (the poor prince died at the age of 4). Cheers! Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Moulay Hassan, Crown Prince of Morocco, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Draft article on Edward Howard, 8th Earl of Effingham

Hello. Could someone re-review Draft:Edward Howard, 8th Earl of Effingham, please? -- Editor FIN (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Succession to the British throne

A discussion has opened about updating the succession. Input would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Which date did Charles III's reign begin, in Oceania?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
King Charles III became monarch of various nations at the exact time of Queen Elizabeth II's passing. At that time, the date was 8th September 2022 in some of the affected realms and 9th September 2022 in others. At issue is the question of on what date King Charles III acceded to the throne in Oceania, and the RfC nominator framed the question as a simple choice between 8th and 9th September.
Not all of the RfC participants accepted this framing, and there was some discussion of using a footnote to explain the complexity, but this footnote option didn't get consensus. Therefore as closer I am confined to choosing between 8th and 9th September.
Taking into account all the !votes, including the one that wasn't placed in the "survey" section, and taking into account the sources (particularly the official Australian and New Zealand government sources that give the date of Her Majesty's passing as the 8th September even though it was 9th September in those countries), I see, somewhat to my own surprise, that there's consensus in favour of the 8th September. All the consequential edits may be made.
If I was an Australian or New Zealander, I think I would be somewhat annoyed by this, so I feel the need to apologise to any citizen of an affected country. I'm sorry. That's the consensus so that's how it is.
I do hope this helps. Any comments, criticism and complaints about this close should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Which accession date in the infobox & article body, should be used for Charles III, at the
Monarchy of Australia
Monarchy of New Zealand
Monarchy of Papua New Guinea
Monarchy of Tuvalu
Monarchy of Solomon Islands pages?

  • A - 8 September 2022
  • B - 9 September 2022

GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey 2

A offial sources in these realms cite the 8th EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I don't care which date we use, as long as it's consistent across the five realms-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • A: Aussie and Kiwi govt sites say that the Queen passed away on 8 September. Peter Ormond 💬 21:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • A - He became King when his mother died on 8 September 2022. Though he did not have a ceremony until a few days later where he was formerly proclaimed as the monarch, here are a few sources that state he became King upon his mothers passing. VOA news, CNN, Al Jazzeera Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 15:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that is not is in dispute at all. It has nothing to do with the proclamation of accession, or even the coronation. The issue is that when the Queen died it was 9 September in New Zealand. StAnselm (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
This vote is a misunderstanding of the intent of the question. El Dubs (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • A. The nature of the "monarchy" status is a bit peculiar and symbolic, but it presumably includes respect for the official seat of that institution. On that basis I am I inclined to apply the timezone of the official seat of the monarchy for all jurisdictions recognized as subject to that monarchy, just as I would apply a Washington D.C. timezone-date rather than a Hawaii timezone-date when discussing when someone was elevated to U.S. president. The evidence presented by Peter Ormond appears to strongly support this conclusion. I am willing to reconsider if/when anyone presents evidence of a contrary prevailing treatment among Reliable Sources. Feel free to ping me in such case. Alsee (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Alsee, I don't think it is as simple as an 'official seat of the monarchy', as the the monarchy in question is the monarchy of Australia (and equivalents) rather than monarchy of the UK. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B. The Monarch of these countries passed away on the morning of 9 September 2022, according to the clocks in those countries, according to the dates of all news sources within those countries. The only reference to the 8th that I've seen is the GG's statement in New Zealand, however that was specifically referring to "At Balmoral on 8 September", rightfully using the time zone of the location it was talking about. Not stating the date the transfer of power occurred in New Zealand. If speaking of Elizabeth dying, we should say 8 September, if speaking of the Monarch of these five Oceanic states dying, we should say 9 September, because these are the most relevant dates for those two subjects. El Dubs (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • It Depends, removing my previous vote based on a recent Official Information Act request. While I'm surprised by it, New Zealand is clearly acknowledging and recognising Accession Day as 8 September 2022. Therefore it makes the most sense to go with this. See Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet response to an information request. El Dubs (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • B Similar to @Supertrinko:, I agree that the DEATH occurred at Balmoral on 8th of September, but the transfer of power in Oceania occurred on the 9th. So 9th should be listed. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B per Alsee, who nailed it in regards to the official seat of monarchy, but that isn't Balmoral or London, for the Australian monarchy, but Canberra. StAnselm (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Striking !vote in light of recent sources. StAnselm (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I think it would be best to give both dates, perhaps as a footnote, to take notice of the time zones, and the fact that NZ is ahead of the rest of the world.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • A per government sources in Aus and NZ which use the 8th. We are (a) going against official sources and (b) on this logic we should be amending hundreds of other dates on Wikipedia to reflect local times against official sources which I think is ludicrous. I would also add, there are also six separate Crowns for the Australian states - are we seriously going to argue that the King in Right of Western Australia and South Australia acceded on a different date to the King in Right of New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria. GeebaKhap (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    All sources I've seen see something entirely different. For example, "It is my solemn duty to advise you that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has passed away on the 8th of September 2022 at Balmoral in the United Kingdom." Doesn't say anything about who was monarch at a minute past midnight on the 9th, for Australians (etc). And no, there aren't six separate such crowns; Australia is a Commonwealth realm, New South Wales isn't. Just as Scotland and England aren't, either (though in these cases were separate crowns historically). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    The sources do not actually say when Charles became King of Australia/New Zealand. Say if a US President dies in New Zealand in the morning of 1 January, then the Vice President in Washington DC will succeed on 31 December. But it will still be correct to say the President died on 1 January.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B provided it specifies the time zone referenced with a footnote explaining why it's not 8 September. Without those two additional elements, we'll have readers/editors constantly raising it as an inconsistency. The "accession" is an event occurring in each realm in question. Basic WP:BLUE WP principle is to apply the time/date applicable in the location where the event occurred. The cause of that event (the death of the Queen) should nevertheless by 8 september, on the same principle. But again a footnote should always explain this and the fact that, notwithstanding the dating, there is no gap between the death and the accession. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B plus footnote, per DeCausa: there was no point on September 8 in Australia when Charles was king (of Australia or anywhere else). —JBL (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: It should be noted that we don't actually know the time of the Queen's death and thus the King's accession. According to our own timeline, she died no later than 16:30 BST (at which time it was still 8 September in Western Australia), and may have died as early as 12:30 BST (when it was still 8 September in all five countries, except for the Chatham Islands and Tokelau). Until or unless an exact time of death is confirmed, we won't know which parts of Oceania witnessed the transition on which date. —Reschultzed|||Talk|||Contributions 01:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • A I reinterate aforementioned arguments, the fact that the Australian and New Zealand governments have the date at 8 September basically ends the argument as we would be going against official sources. Also, the official seat of the Monarchy of Australia, New Zealand et. al. for legal purposes is in London. Government House in Wellington for example, is the residence of the New Zealand Governor-General, not the Monarch. I don't think it matters where the actual land which the monarch presides over is located. Just to show that juristiction location is a problematic standard, Heard Island and McDonald Islands as an Australian external territory located at GMT +5, so it definently had King Charles as its monarch at some point on September 8. If the seat of the Monarch was in Canberra, no one would be arguing that a footnote or an account be made for Heard and McDonald Islands. The same logic must apply then if the seat of the Monarch of Australia et al. is located in London, which no one has shown to be otherwise.
In any case, the Australian and New Zealand governments have confirmed the date, without any contrary guidance. I don't know why or how there can now be a discussion unless they state otherwise. Succession is immediate so if they state a date of death, that is the date of the accession. The whole debate about the "at Balmoral"... it doesn't even exist in the Australian media release; and in the New Zealand media release is not explicit that it is any condition on the date. Maranello10 (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • A. Per the arguments by Peter Ormond, Alsee & Maranello10; but primarily per the sources referenced above. Additional strong support for consistency across the articles, per GoodDay. - Ryk72 talk 11:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • B Since the time of death of the Queen has been released (15:10 UTC+1). It was already 9 Sep in the capitals of those countries.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I would like to raise an example. If one day a Commonwealth realm other than the UK removes the monarch. Would the monarch's reign end on a time based on the UK or that realm?--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion 2

There are a few issues here - one of them is where is the "Monarchy of New Zealand" located: is it in London (where Charles resides) or in Wellington? I would say the latter, and that leads me to prefer NZST. StAnselm (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Would you clarify which option, in the survey section. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm still waiting to hear arguments in favour of A. StAnselm (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
So you're supporting or at least leaning towards B. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. StAnselm (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Where is the "Monarchy of New Zealand" located? Inclined to the view that on Sept 8th & 9th, the Monarchy of New Zealand, & of Australia, was, verifiably, in Balmoral, Scotland. - Ryk72 talk 11:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's hard to search for it now, because all the Google results are about the proclamation. StAnselm (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to note - the Australian government website says "On Friday 9 September 2022, the Prime Minister issued a public statement ... to extend condolences to His Majesty The King, Charles the Third, King of Australia". So that makes it pretty clear that by then (in the eyes of the Aus gov) he was ALREADY King of Australia.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Alsee, not sure if this will change your mind? But to me this is less OR because rather than going off 'when was the death' this clearly is 'when was he king'. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Tomorrow and tomorrow that source says the Prime Minister issued a statement on the 9th. That local event is obviously going to be stated in local time, but more significantly he could have just as well have made the statement on the 11th. I don't think that source helps here, other than to counter any claim to a later date. Another page on the same website says Her Majesty The Queen passed away on 8 September 2022. If I understand correctly, the Aussie government officially acknowledged her death using non-Aussie timezoning. There is still arguably a small step of OR in presuming that the death of the Queen implies immediate succession, but that source is much more on-point and your source puts an exceptionally narrow window on any possible distinction between death and succession. Alsee (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I see your point regarding not saying if he was king on the 8th. I'm still backing B but thanks for engaging. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There have been two information requests sent to Australia and New Zealand regarding the date.[3][4]--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Rohsopht: I see there's a response to the Australian request, but it's not helping us. StAnselm (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I also asked the Government House of NZ. I am told that the Cabinet Office is currently considering the question.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, would you please place your "A" in the survey section? GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
You, @Otr500, appear to be "!"voting A, on the basis that the Monarchy of the United Kingdom changed hands on Sept 8, their time. But this about the Monarchy of New Zealand, etc. It appears to have been Sept 9 in New Zealand when that happened (though the sources are a little coy about it, and there seems to have been no actual or official confirmation of the exact time of death). "It's Saturday, 00:01am. Do you know who your monarch is?" 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I've chosen neither "A" or "B". GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Edited for clarity (clear as I thought it was already). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Again, would you please place your "A" position in the survey section. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Rohsopht: There is a response to your NZ request. NZ officially acknowledges "Accession Day as the day he became King in the United Kingdom, 8 September." El Dubs (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
When they reply, the exact time of the Queen's death was unknown. But since the time is now known I will not rely on their answer. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
If their answer made any reference to time of death, this would make sense. But it didn't. It simply stated that Accession Day is the day he became King in the United Kingdom. This means the time of death makes no difference. Accession Day in NZ is officially 8 September. El Dubs (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Time and time again, people just start votes before any discussion or comments have been received, and then think the result of a vote is what forms a consensus. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, the vote should be the last resort if through the proper discourse of discussion we cannot reach a clear consensus. By starting a vote before discussion, people pick their choice before being able to weigh up that choice against arguments already made. This is clear in the misunderstandings of what this vote is asking for above. We should first discuss reasons why for each, including sharing and interpreting of sources, and finally at the end of that come to a vote only if necessary. Remember, it's a Request for Comment, not a Request for Votes. El Dubs (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Best to settle this matter earlier, rather then later. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
There is WP:NORUSH, we don't have to jump to a vote and settle it earlier, see what people think through discussion and then call that a consensus, only voting if necessary. By holding a discussion first, you ensure that all if it comes to a vote, that votes that are placed are made with discussion taken into account. Discussion is the cornerstone of consensus on Wikipedia. El Dubs (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Otr500: Would you please state your position, in the 'survey section'? GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Additional comments: GoodDay, thanks for the ping. 1)- Some of us do not have the luxury of Wikipedia-by-our-side-all-the-time. 2)- I am one of those that would like substantial arguments counter to mine (WP:NORUSH), from an encyclopedia point of view, more than editor bias (not a bad thing) towards one aspect, 3)- I do not give much credibility to "though the sources are a little coy about it", that makes me give more consideration to the place and time of the death of the Queen as the moment her heir became king, 4)- I did, however, miss "the rule" that a !vote can only receive consideration "if" it is properly and officially placed under the "Survey section". I did read in the Monarchy of Australia: Regardless of any proclamations, the late sovereign's heir immediately and automatically succeeds, without any need for confirmation or further ceremony. This leads back to when and where the sovereign met with demise. I will, after some more study, add to the appropriate section. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
While important to note when and where the sovereign passed away, I think it's also important to note where the transfer of power takes place. And for the Monarchy of Australia, even if the Sovereign is elsewhere, I see no reason to not believe that the transfer of Australian power occurs in Australia, especially when confirmed by proclamation within Australia. El Dubs (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I know it's not exactly the same thing. But, the Union of South Africa approved Edward VIII's abdication on 10 December 1936 & Irish Free State didn't approve his abdication until 12 December 1936, even though the UK & the rest of the empire approved it on 11 December 1936. Makes one wonder, would we have used the 11th, with footnotes for SA (10 Dec) & the IFS (12 Dec).? GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I have the same instinct as you, as to where is the "Monarchy of New Zealand" located, as being important. I thought initially it was probably New Zealand, and if it was going to be anywhere in New Zealand it had to be Government House in Wellington. The Government House website states that it is the residence of the Governor General, not the Monarch. It seems the seat of the Monarch is decoupled from the jurisdiction that it precides and is located at Buckingham Palace, otherwise it would have to be stated. This point is reflected in my survey response for now, but I also added it here to continue discussion. Maranello10 (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
So strange, all the non-UK realms don't include their monarch as a co-resident with their governor-general, except for one (see Rideau Hall & Citadelle of Quebec), Canada. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
It may be a relic of Canada being geographically close in a relative sense to the UK compared to the other realms, that the monarch could realistically visit (and probably subsequently did) before viable air travel. For example, Queen Elizabeth was the first sitting monarch to visit Australia; there would be little point making the monarch a "co-resident" of Government House during the time of the Statute of Westminster 1931 laying the groundwork for the current relationships with the realms, or anything prior to that period. Maranello10 (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: The conversation has stalled for two weeks, and we have received an answer from the New Zealand DPMC information request. You started the RFC and remained neutral, so do you wish to close the discussion? Otherwise, I am happy to put in a formal closure request. Maranello10 (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Maranello10:, you may put in a formal closure request. GoodDay (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Solomon Islands appears to use 8 September as well, as seen here. StAnselm (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@StAnselm: I am going to request a formal closure shortly, do you wish to change your option in the survey section before I do? Maranello10 (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Done. StAnselm (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review: Hungarian nobility

I've listed the article Hungarian nobility for peer review before its nomination as a FAC. The article is not short but it covers the 1000-year-long history of this class that made up almost 5% of the population of today's Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia and parts of Romania, Ukraine and Serbia from the 17th century. All comments are highly appreciated here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Articles under the purview of this WikiProject

Just making sure. All the articles of nobles from countries other than the UK such as Guglielmo Marconi, Salvador Dalí, Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, 1st Marquis of Pombal, and Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias are supposed to be under the purview of this WikiProject work group, correct? StellarHalo (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I will be taking the lack of replies from the followers of this page as a Yes. On second thought, I should not have asked this in the first place. StellarHalo (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Exact dates

Should exact dates be supported for titles and styles sections? In many articles I've found this is not the case, such as Anne, Queen of Great Britain, where her title as "The Princess Anne of Denmark" is not supported by exact dates. Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester has no citations for her titles.

I ask because a certain editor keeps reverting my edits on Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood. I reasoned that exact dates need not used for her titles by marriage because it's incredibly she would have started using the Viscountess Lascelles or Countess of Harewood titles at a different time than her husband. The only example I know of a Princess not taking her titles husband is Princess Margaret, never being known as "Mrs Antony Armstrong-Jones", which is why this is cited separately, it is an exceptional case. Because we know Princess Mary used these titles (from my sources) is it not safe to assume that she used them when her husband did. It's not like she would have suddenly started using the Countess of Harewood title several years or even days after her husband became Earl. So, 9/10 it's safe to assume a Royal woman would use titles taking from her husband beginning at the same time he used them, is it not? Estar8806 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If you can't find a reliable source that actually supports something, I don't think you should be using WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to fill in the gaps. JBL (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"Template:Infobox Doge" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Infobox Doge to the template Template:Infobox officeholder and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Template:Infobox Doge until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 16:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion of interest

It has been proposed to merge the article Eskam's daughter to Eskam. Please discuss here.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

William III needs assistance

William III of Sicily is lacking citations and needs editors assistance. Thinker78 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Bourbon-Parma Princes on Template:Dutch princes

There's a dispute regarding the inclusion of the descendants of Princess Irene of the Netherlands on Template:Dutch princes, Template:Dutch princesses, and Template:Dutch princesses by marriage.

So the issue regarding the Bourbon-Parma is that their official titles are not "Prince(ss) of the Netherlands" or "Prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau". Their titles as listed here https://www.hogeraadvanadel.nl/adel/nederlandse-adellijke-families/noord-nederlandse-adellijke-families are in the Dutch nobility, which is different from the listed royal titles mentioned and are more similar to titles such as Prince de Chimay and Prince of Waterloo. While they are undoubtedly part of the extended Dutch Royal family, so are people like Countess Eloise of Orange-Nassau and Bernardo Guillermo, who are not listed in these templates as they don't hold the titles "Prince(ss) of the Netherlands" or "Prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau". The situation with the children of Princess Irene is similar. It's worth noting that them being added here is a recent addition. 2601:249:9301:D570:AD0B:B188:D02D:CB9C (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Intros of Elizabeth II's & Charles III's coronation pages

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clear consensus for option A. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


Concerning the pages: Which of the following options, should we have in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Options:

  1. "...United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" (see intro to Charles III's coronation)
  2. "...United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc..." (note the oath mentions all the realms in order of their age, beginning with the UK. Therefore, all realms would be shown & linked)
  3. Don't mention the realms at all (see intro to Elizabeth II's coronation)

Survey4

  • A - is my first choice, as the 1953 coronation occurred in the United Kingdom & the 2023 coronation is scheduled to occur in the United Kingdom. I would accept B as a secondary choice, as the realms are (and I assume will be) mentioned in the coronation oaths. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • C: Don't mention any realm in the first sentence, and list them later in the first paragraph like it is done at the Queen's article. At the time of her coronation in 1953, the Queen was the first monarch to be crowned with separate titles in each of her then-seven realms. Coronation Contingents and fleet review ships were sent from every realm, and guard was held at Buckingham Palace by troops of every realm. And each realm's Coronation Standard was marched in the procession. Every realm was represented at the ceremony. Removing all the realms and substituting it with "UK and other Commonwealth realms" is WP:UNDUE. As far as consistency is concerned, the King also has a separate title in each of his 15 realms, like his mother. When sources appear next year stating the King's was crowned monarch of such-and-such realms, then we can add them in the intro, like it is done at his mother's article. Peter Ormond 💬 21:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • A would be best. Suggest rather than mentioning the list of realms, phrasing similar to that in Charles III's lead paragraph "The United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms" with a link, would be better than somewhat tediously listing them in prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Clarify please @Wehwalt:, you're choosing C, but describing A, as the preference. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Changed to A.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • A, or 2nd choice B. The full list could go lower down. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • A, I think it's important to mention the realms without getting carried away with the full list of realms. Векочел (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • A, just for brevity. Do we really want to put the names of all 15 realms in one big long sentence? I think it is reasonable to mention the primary realm the Monarch resides in and use Commonwealth realms as a catch-all term for all of the other nations the King reigns over. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • A makes the most sense to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • None of these - A and B seem factually wrong - For Queen Elizabeth II it seems factually wrong to say Commonwealth realms since mostly the members became such *after* her 1953 coronation as a major feature of her reign, and it seems factually untrue to say her oath was listing "United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc" of (Commonwealth) realms in order of age since her oath was to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon,...". See royal.uk, royalcentral, or Britannica. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • A has my vote, mainly for the sake of brevity. We don't need to list out every single realm, I feel it would just result in unneeded bloat, but I think it's important to mention the other realms in some way. Planetberaure (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion4

Note: After being twice reverted at the Coronation of Elizabeth II's page, in my attempts to bring about consistency with the intro of the Coronation of Charles III and Camilla page (thus requiring this RFC), I've chosen to respect WP:BRD on the former. This way the differences between the page intros, will highlight the topic here. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@HTGS: The entire list, if B is chosen & in order of the realm's age, per the coronation oath. If A is chosen? Commonwealth realms would be linked. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod:, you forgot to sign your 'survey' post. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Thks - done Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

B would be best since she was Queen of all realms independently, but A would be a reasonable second choice. C is woefully inadequate as to suggest she was more largely Queen of the UK, or that the others are somehow contingent on this. Likewise each of her realms should again be listed in her infobox but that’s another discussion. Timothy N-F (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


  • I think factually of her oath and office 70+ years ago was not the same as what his will be in 2023, which is still a bit in speculation. Do not try to force some OR factually incorrect wording just to have it identical -- the situations are simply not identical. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Edwardian" vs. "Edwardine"

Hello, I was hoping you all might be able to offer your expertise on a question of nomenclature. I am in the final stages of assembling material for an article on religious books (the 1550 and 1552 Ordinals) published under Edward VI's authority. Typically, these books are referred to as adjectively "Edwardine", but the more recent academic standard in referring to these texts seems to be "Edwardian". Since both seem conceptually acceptable, which is the more acceptable word so that I may adhere to the standards that you all have laid out? Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear? Thinker78 (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Who awards the orders, decorations and medals?

I've opened an RFC up at WP:Orders, decorations and medals talkpage. Would appreciate input, there. GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth II, awarding orders, decorations and medals

Would appreciate some input at this RFC. -- GoodDay (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Anne Boleyn

Anne Boleyn has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Femke (alt) (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Titling of Princesses

Hello WikiProject:Royalty! I am here to notify you of an ongoing RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RFC: Article titles for Various Princesses. Hope to hear your input! Estar8806 (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Who is this?

Hello. Would anyone be able to assist me in recognising who this lady who attended Constantine II's funeral? She is seen at 5:02:56, kissing Crown Prince Pavlos. She arrived with Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg. Thank you. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an: Doesn't look like his wife. Possibly one of his sisters. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Yes, I didn't think it was his wife. Any idea which sister? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
She looks like Princess Margaretha of Liechtenstein, Henri's younger sister. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Right. She's already listed in the article luckily. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Yup, she was representing her brother-in-law. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Famous biologist and Bavarian princess?

See the current discussion at Talk:Alice Auersperg. She is one of the world's foremost experts (if not *the* foremost expert) in the habits and behaviors of the Tanimbar corella (one of my favourite parrots) and she and her research have appeared in the media numerous times over the past ten years. She also seems to be a Princess of Bavaria - the second daughter of Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (b. 1951). Something which is less well-known and that I only discovered yesterday when I was looking for places to link her (new) article. I couldn't find anything more reliable on the web than blogs and forum posts mentioning this, however. Just coming here to ask if you folks have access to any books that would be reliable enough sources so this info can be added to her article. Thanks. Iloveparrots (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

There are no princesses of Bavaria born in 1981, for obvious reasons. There are, unfortunately, a bunch of very poor articles on Wikipedia about the descendants of deposed monarchs, apparently written and maintained by fantasists about the continued existence of entities like the Kingdom of Bavaria; Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (b. 1951) is a typical example. I hope that you will not push an article about a scientist who is (I presume) notable in that role on the basis of her accomplishments into the fantasy pile. --JBL (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I see that David Eppstein already told you this on the talk-page; his comments there are entirely correct. --JBL (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I absolutely agree with him (and you) that it shouldn't be the main thrust of the article, for sure. So, you don't think it's notable enough to mention at all in the article, to be clear? Iloveparrots (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Your opening comment here still said that she is a princess. This is false. We must not say that. I think that even mentioning her claim to be an heiress of a defunct title is problematic per WP:BLP, because stating it properly and neutrally requires us to also state that she is incorrect in making such a claim. We should only do so if (1) we have clear sourcing that she herself makes this claim and not merely that others make it for her, and (2) this claim is described in mainstream sources that clearly present the mainstream view that this is a fictional title, per WP:FRINGE. Otherwise, at best we can say that her father is Liutpold. Even that is problematic because our article on her father uses his fictional title and provides no non-fictional way of referring to him. Do not take her father's article as an example; it is a bad article, for all the same reasons. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
At the time I wrote that I was kinda unfamiliar with the situation with royalty in Germany, to be honest with you, with regards to the title being officially defunct (as opposed to "it still exists as a paper title"). I'd just looked at the Liutpold article and made assumptions from that. Yes, as far as I'm aware Auersperg has never mentioned it herself, or at least not anywhere that I could find. Yes, now I think we should leave it, for the reasons you've stated. Should the Luitpold article, and those of his brothers be renamed? Iloveparrots (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
First, Luitpold does not have a brother. Second, the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Hypothetical, dissolved and defunct titles is pretty clear on what the title of his article should be especially when that section was added after there had been lengthy discussions on the topic. In any case, if anyone wants it or the articles on his relatives renamed, be sure to open a requested move discussion. StellarHalo (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

A slight dispute over a page being moved, related to Charles III

Would appreciate input concerning a recent page move, folks. GoodDay (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Death and funeral of Michael I of Romania

I'm just calling editors of this WikiProject to contribute to the requested move at Death and funeral of Michael I of Romania. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Constantine II's relation to Albert II

In this article, it states that Albert II of Monaco is a sixth cousin once removed of Constantine II of Greece. I have been looking around for their most recent common ancestor, but I am struggling to find one. If someone could please inform me who it is and how they relate, please do! Thank you. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an:, their common ancestors were John William Friso and his wife, Marie Louise of Hesse-Kassel, great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents of Constantine II of Greece & great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents of Albert II of Monaco. See Royal descendants of John William Friso, for further info. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay. I was aware of that, I just wanted to know if there was a closer ancestor, but it seems there's not. Thanks for responding. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Rainier III & Constantine II 'were' sixth cousins. There's some re-marriages within the family tree. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
He's the brother-in-law of the king's cousin, a fellow head of state and they sat on the Olympic Committee together. Some unsourced and trivial relationship is irrelevant. DrKay (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
It's not trivial or irrelevant at all in the article. The whole section is showing how they are related (also in a way why they came to the funeral). And it doesn't matter if it's unsourced in this case as basic Wikipedia resources can be used to trace their relation up to John William Friso. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
also in a way why they came to the funeral. Several of the royal funerals articles do this but the relevance of the relationship to the person being buried is at best WP:FANCRUFT and as an explanation for their presence it's normally WP:OR. That he was his 6th cousin is why he was there? Really? DeCausa (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
+1. --JBL (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Albert II was a brother-in-law of Constantine II? GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
No. DrKay (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Former heirs-apparent/presumptive to defunct thrones, infobox headings

Was wondering. In the infobox headings of (for example) Paul, Crown Prince of Greece, Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia & other such individuals. Wouldn't it be a tad more accurate to have (for example) "Former Crown Prince of Greece", "Former Crown Prince of Yugoslavia", etc? I'm not recommending changing the page name, as those were their highest titles in life. Just suggesting a change in the infobox headings, to further clarify their current status. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't do this for any officeholders of any description. I see absolutely no point in making an exception. DrKay (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Regnal numbers for successors and predecessors in infoboxes for monarchs of more than one country

For example: William III of England was William II of Scotland too. What should he be displayed as in infoboxes with him as predecessor, successor, co-monarch or monarch?

This affects other monarchs, like Philip II of Spain, (I of Portugal) etc. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey

  • B - Though my main concern is that we have consistency on this matter. So, I'll be content with which ever 'option' ends up being chosen. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Option A Per my arguments here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  • A per @Tim O'Doherty rationale. Infobox are no place to go over the details of the reganl numeration etc.Marcelus (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  • A - Unfortunately the broadness of this RfC - applying invented numbering systems to Philip II (who is not called Philip II & I in any reliable source) - means that option B would result in unsourced original research, which is not acceptable on wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  • D - As someone whose primary focus on Wikipedia is royalty, I prefer option D as I believe that is the most beneficial option. Options B and C, while both technically correct, are difficult if not impossible to find reliable sources for. Option A could work in some cases in which there is only one monarch with that one regnal number (like Edward VIII, the only such Edward VIII of any place), but in this case, William III is a common name shared by many individuals. This raises an issue that has constantly been debated on this website: should we use of country after a monarch's name and ordinal? Wikipedia:SOVEREIGN certainly thinks so. However, editors have constantly found exceptions to the point that it doesn't even look like we have a uniform naming convention anymore. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • A - (Summoned by bot) applying invented numbering systems … … means that option B would result in unsourced original research AFAIK, the only UK monarch who is regularly referred to by 'joint' numbers is James VI and I, for obvious reasons. Where the other title is relevant for some reason, it can be referred to in text. This isn't substantially different from the other 'subsidiary' titles or roles that a monarch (or other head of state) may hold. Where, for some reason (such as acquiring the second kingdom) a monarch is regularly referred to by more than one title (such as James VI & I) an exception can be made, but including (fairly nominal) 'Scottish numbers' would confuse more than inform, since they are very rarely used or referred to. Pincrete (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Mostly A. I think the search for consistency here is futile and unhelpful. There is no consistency and consistency should not be applied for its own sake. Where dual ordinals are common, such as James VI and I, they can be used (option B). Where dual ordinals are rare or never used, such as Philip II and I, they should be avoided. Where there is ambiguity, such as Philip II of Spain and Philip II of Portugal, then the country identifier might be needed (option D). I wouldn't select option C for an infobox. We can use ampersands in infoboxes to save on space and avoid wrapping where possible. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • A or D sometimes, except for very specific contexts relating to the other title. Above all we should not be inventing naming styles, which some WP editors are very prone to do. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Mostly A per @Celia Homeford solely based on existing precedence involving regnal numbering. But I would also support a review of those practices.--Estar8806 (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I should point out, Elizabeth II was not Elizabeth I of Scotland, as Scotland isn't a sovereign state. But - William III of England 'was' William II of Scotland & Philip II of Spain was Philip I of Portugal, as Scotland (then) & Portugal were sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Even though Scotland is no longer a sovereign state (and has not been since 1707) she was still commonly called Elizabeth I of Scotland. Whatever she was, she was not Elizabeth II of Scotland; postboxes with "EIIR" on them were blown up in Scotland: she was recognised as Elizabeth I, even the first minister called her as such. When I visited Edinburgh a few months ago, I went to the Museum on the Mound, where there were labels with "Edward I & VII", Edward II & VIII", and "Elizabeth I & II on them. People in Scotland do still use the Scottish numbering system even though Scotland is part of the UK. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware of those objections in Scotland, but it didn't change the fact that she was Elizabeth II of the entire United Kingdom. I'm sure there'll be objections to the name of the future British monarch (if he chooses that name) William V. I'm not aware of any objections in Scotland, over the names of past British monarchs William IV & Edward VII. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, she was Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but that United Kingdom incorporates the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, of which Elizabeth was I of one and II of the other. It had been the Kingdom of Great Britain, then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, before being the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but it still incorporates the two former kingdoms + NI. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
She still reigned as Elizabeth II over Scotland, no matter any objections. But, that's not exactly what this RFC is about, as nobody is suggesting we use "Elizabeth II & I". GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
That matter was settled nearly seventy years ago, see Hansard "Royal Style and Title", 15 April 1953. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

What if the monarch was ruling over more than two kingdoms? Marcelus (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Would have to add an extra ordinal, which is why I oppose it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Some monarchs used/use a different regnal number in those situations, while others don't. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, was also Elizabeth II of Canada (for example). However, Charles XV of Sweden was Charles IV of Norway. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but Eric of Pomerania is known as Eric III in Norway, Eric VII in Denmark and Eric XIII in Sweden. Marcelus (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Best we get some consistency, then. I would recommend that if option A is chosen? the primary country should be added to the name, to avoid confusion. Thus "William III of England", rather then "William III", or "Charles XV of Sweden", rather then "Charles XV". GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
That would be less consistent. I would rather have "William III and II" than "William III of England". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Which would (for example) 'remove' Spain, in the Spanish/Portuguese examples. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. Philip II, for example, is overwhelmingly known as being the king of Spain. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Just the same, we should have an option 'D' - example "William III of England". GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Why can't, if they are monarch of multiple places, have the corresponding ordinal for the kingdom or duchy or whatever that they were monarch or duke of? For example, in Christopher of Bavaria's infobox, in the portion for King of Denmark, Eric of Pomerania is "Eric VII", but in "King of Sweden" he is "Eric XIII". This seems like a sensible compromise to me. It's even applicable for the British Isles; a list of English monarchs would have "William III", but a list of Scottish monarchs would have William II (this is already the case). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
You mean divide up the infobox content? Have (for example) a separate "King of England and Ireland" & "King of Scotland" setup. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
No, but if something like that is already there, then that should happen. William III was King of England, Scotland, and Ireland as William III, II, and I, but since it's his article, no need to split. With his predecessors and successors or co-monarchs and people he was monarch of, it should just be William III per my above arguments. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
If you're meaning William's infobox? The discussion (in William's case) is should his predecessor be shown as "James II", "James II & VII", "James II of England" etc. Should co-monarch be "Mary II" or "Mary II of England". GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm saying that no monarch's infobox should be split between kingdoms just for the sake of this discussion (only to number them differently if they already are split), which is why in William's successors/predecessors' infoboxes there shouldn't be differing sections for "William I", "William II", and "William III". I just also wanted to clarify that I wouldn't split his kingdoms in his infobox either. Sorry if the wording wasn't clear. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
"Mary II", I think. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies

An RM that will be of interest to editors here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BROY has a new task force

There is a new task force which members of the WikiProject might also be interested in: WP:CIII. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Meghan's The Cut interview and media appearances by royalty

Shutting down as the consensus regarding both questions is clear and everyone is carrying on with their usual activities. A discussion can always take place on individual talk pages. There was no consensus for removing the content from Meghan's page, however, people argued that the language was undue. With regards to the second question, people argued that it should be evaluated on a case by case basis, and it seems that undue criticism of comments made by a royal in an interview does not necessarily belong on their article. Keivan.fTalk 14:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two questions:

1) Should the following paragraph be included in the article on Meghan, Duchess of Sussex?

In the interview, Meghan recalled being told at the premiere of The Lion King in London by a South African cast member that following her marriage to Harry, people in South Africa "rejoiced in the streets the same we did when Mandela was freed from prison".[1] Meghan was criticized by Mandela's grandson Mandla Mandela for the comments.[1][2] John Kani, the only South African cast member of The Lion King, stated that he did not recall meeting Meghan,[3] and Lebo M., the film's South African composer who was at the London premiere, revealed that he could not remember discussing Mandela with her.[4]

2) Should we include/omit passages that discuss media/print media appearances from other articles on royalty, given that rarely give interviews? Or should we just evaluate on a case by case basis? Keivan.fTalk 22:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Furness, Hannah (August 30, 2022). "Meghan marrying a white prince doesn't compare to overcoming apartheid, says Mandela's grandson". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved September 1, 2022.
  2. ^ Davies, Caroline (August 30, 2022). "Mandela grandson 'surprised' at Meghan wedding comparison". The Guardian. Retrieved September 4, 2022.
  3. ^ Whitehead, Joanna (September 1, 2022). "South African Lion King actor 'baffled' over Meghan Markle comments". The Independent. Retrieved September 1, 2022.
  4. ^ Farmer, Ben; Furness, Hannah (September 1, 2022). "South African Lion King composer 'does not remember' discussing Nelson Mandela with Meghan". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved September 1, 2022.
  • My take:
    • 1) Considering that Meghan is the wife a British prince and members of the British royal family traditionally do not do cover stories and give interviews 'regularly', I though her unprecedented The Cut interview from August/September 2022 was worth mentioning. In the interview she made the unsubstantiated claims that she was told people danced in the streets of South Africa the same way they did when Mandela was released. The two South African members of the cast and crew came out and said none of them told her anything like this, which means that 1) she either made it up, 2) or she misremembered the whole thing. I feel that claims of this nature call into question any subject's credibility. Yes, it was a cover story, and she has not perjured herself in court, but that doesn't alter the fact that it does not look good. So, is it worth mentioning or is it "a media storm in a teacup" as User:HJ Mitchell put it?
    • 2) I think controversial media appearances are worth mentioning, such as Prince Andrew's disastrous Newsnight interview or Prince Harry's recent interviews, as long as the whole thing is not bloated. Keivan.fTalk 22:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No, your rationale is wrong. One talked to her at the premiere, and does not remember the discussion. So your claim is off, it's not about credibility, it's about memory, and lack of memory -- both can be true, at the same time. It's more like an unencyclopedic ripple in a teacup Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The South African cast member was not there. He could not even remember even if he tried to because he was not physically there. And the article states that it was the "cast member", not the composer, or anybody else. So no, at best, she misremembered. Or are you trying to say that she misremembered the dialogue AND the person who said it AND their nationality? And why even recount such a ridiculous story anyway? Which is what Mandela's grandson criticized her for regardless of whether what she said was true or not. If someone from Harry's family had said this they would have been rightly condemned for their comments and I doubt anyone would have opposed its inclusion in their articles. Which is why I brought up the RfC, so that this can be used as a future reference. Keivan.fTalk 23:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
You're the one who is repeating it. And you calling it ridiculous certainly does not increase confidence that it has any place in the encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The claim is what he states is ridiculous. The secondary sources discussing it are not. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Entertainment and celebrity and royal news discusses all sorts of nonsense, that's no reason for inclusion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
So what should the article actually contain then, in your view? "Prince Harry is a Prince. He once served in the British Army, The End"? I agree that there is room for improvement/removal of bloat in areas, but the foundation of the article will be Entertainment and celebrity and royal news, because the number of academic books that would be published on a prince so young, and unlikely to inherit, is quite low. It may not be a reason for inclusion, but it is certainly not a reason for exclusion either. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Writing an encyclopedia bio even of this subject (and another of her husband) already exists [5], so yes it is possible to write it, just don't include 'royal news of the day' (wrapping paper for fish in olden days) bloat. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Nearly the entire contents of that article could be sourced to news articles, and numerous parts do brush with royal news of the day. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Brush? Even if so (which seems doubtful) that means not wallowing in it for paragraphs. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
"Wallowing in it for paragraphs"? Is that how you define the 'three sentences' in dispute here? Because if were to wallow in it for paragraphs we could write an article on this incident alone. Keivan.fTalk 16:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, I and other say it's undue for a three sentence paragraph, and it's not alone in the article of this kind of stuff. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, so let me get this straight. Me repeating this is somehow wrong, but she should get a free pass for saying it in the first place? Again, regardless of whether she was told this by someone else or she genuinely misremembered, to even repeat such story is the height of absurdity. Her wedding in no way, shape, or form can be compared to Mandela's release from prison. And I'm behind what I said. Had this been one of her in-laws they rightly would not have gotten a free pass for saying such a thing, and neither should she, who is a member of the British royal family that represents multiple states. Keivan.fTalk 10:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Get it straight. The article, and other such articles, are bloated and larded up with such "ridiculous" nothings of encyclopedic value. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The mere fact that two other users have advocated for its inclusion means that it may not be considered "ridiculous nothings of encyclopedic value" by everyone. Keivan.fTalk 16:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
What it means is it does not clear WP:ONUS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
And WP:ONUS states Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. I don't see a consensus for removing it, but in the face of concerns raised by you and the other user it has now been trimmed down along with other parts of the article. Keivan.fTalk 19:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Read ONUS fully, the proponent/supporters of article content needs to get consensus for it - that is the onus. (This is especially so in a BLP, given the relative harm/no harm). The consensus on the article talk page, and the majority here is that the proposed language above is undue.
I take it you have now compromised the proposal above, so this discussion can be closed and the matter returned to the talk page. Or do still want to pursue this 'all interviews matter' thing, which can't get consensus, because such a 'rule' is unworkable and bad editing (primary sources don't get an automatic pass, no source does) and is particularly unworkable and inapposite for a subject who has been giving interviews and blogging and writing for years and years of her life.
(On a side note, as we are here, the article last I checked uses "revealed" in several places (see ), which should be replaced with 'said' and the like.)
Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
The language may be undue, but the content is not undue per the consensus here (one of whom by the way also commented on the article's talk). It's only you and two other users who advocated for its removal, and that's hardly a solid consensus. And based on other people's recommendation, the whole thing has been removed and reduced to one sentence with a neutral language, so that it doesn't seem we are accusing her of anything.
You are the person who compromised the proposal. Going into unnecessary details as to why the paragraph needs to be removed. You did not even allow anyone answer the second question. Meghan's blogging before her marriage to Harry is irrelevant because she was not married to a prince of the United Kingdom and most people didn't even know who she was. And she was blogging about food or clothes, which are hardly controversial topics.
Anyway, this discussion is over. The paragraph was removed and entirely modified and apparently everyone is carrying on with their daily activities. And my second proposal is unworkable, which is good, because I will be pointing out to this discussion in the future to show that detailed criticism of what the subject (i.e. a royal family member) said in an interview does not necessarily belong on their article. Keivan.fTalk 14:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
No, it does not belong here, and yes, many people would say the same of other royal pages. There was not so much debate about this before Meghan's wiki.
Your responses sound highly personal.
Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia of value, not to be used about judging someone's "credibility" which is highly subjective. This is what makes her page in particular sound more like a tabloid recounting, because this does not read in the same way as other pages on royals. Other royals have said controversial things, and their pages are not reported on a second by second basis like this one. It's ridiculous honestly.
I also think that when secondary sources are used, we should ensure that the primary sources from them are also credible (e.g., that the BBC being used as a secondary source is not based on report from the Daily Mail). This applies to all of them, not just Meghan's page in particular. Cibrian209 (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, please. You're in no place to question my objectivity when all your contributions have been to articles on Meghan and her kids. And you clearly have not read any of the articles on other royals. Kate's page discusses her bare bottom; Sophie's page discusses her getting photographed with her breast out; and Camilla's page covers Tampongate. So what are you suggesting then? That we should start censoring information? Because if it can be done for Meghan, there's no reason that it can't be done for others. Keivan.fTalk 15:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
There were big media storms related to comments made by William (e.g., racism in football, Africans and children and conservation, comments about not being used to war), yet you do not see me advocating for them to be included on his page, even though others have done so. So please, we are not the same here.
As another user suggested, there are things that should be considered on a case by case basis. If you did not want this to be considered seriously, then you shouldn't have asked for opinions or consensus. Cibrian209 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Which again proves that you did not even read the article on William. Let me help you then with these excerpts of the article.
In February 2021, following an investigation into racism directed at Marcus Rashford, William released a statement as president of the FA, denouncing the "racist abuse... whether on the pitch, in the stands, or on social media" as "despicable" and stating that "we all have a responsibility" to create an environment of tolerance and accountability.
William has occasionally commented on the effects of overpopulation on the wildlife of Africa, but his remarks have been criticised for not taking resource consumption and population density into consideration.
With regards to his comments about war, he did not mention any specific continents. Which is why everyone backtracked on their criticism of him. Keivan.fTalk 17:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I think in general, royalty (or indeed other notable figures) that rarely give interviews should have significant ones added to the article, so long as it isn't UNDUE. Especially so for Meghan, where I would vote to include the matter, among other similar instances (the non-existent New Zealand air route comes to mind). At this point, her main "thing" is the various semi-debunked self-aggrandizing stories of her own life; not her position in British Royalty or time as an actor. In the same way that Trump, for better or worse, will almost entirely be discussed going forward with at least some mention of his tenure as president (and all that encapsulated...), Meghan will likely always be remembered for the rapid and embarrassing investigations of her embellished, or outright invented, stories. It has become a core part of the history of her life, by now. This is especially so considering most come from her memoirs, or interviews where she is not "under fire": this is not a gaffe from a person trying to get a reporter off their back. There, I might be sympathetic to a person being caught in a lie (and Wikipedia certainly has decided to act with mercy or sympathy, under IAR, but here, it has become a prominent part of her character. I think in general, and especially in her case, such should be included. However sympathetic I might be to her for other matters, Wikipedia should not run interference and hide actions that she knowingly chose. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    No, this in a WP:BLP, we don't write essays to put forward an argument about a person. You have put forward a your own unsourced by an historian, invented, plainly contentious argument about alleged "core part of history", and just as problematic your personal view of a BLP's "character", which you now seek to prove through random use of sources (a Lion King comment, something from Harry's memoir about a New Zealand airline, neither of which have any connection to each other). (See, WP:NOR). That is no way to write a BLP, and it is not even a way to talk about a BLP on a Talk page (WP:BLPTALK). It's also not true that we include every interview. For example, there is no mention in the BLP article of the television interview she gave in South Africa, when she was a working royal. Moreover, the New Zealand airline did sell connecting tickets in Mexico as part of the Star Alliance with United Airlines. And it is in Harry's memoir, not her memoir. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Apologies for mixing up Harry's memoirs and her statements, mea culpa. I don't understand your point about there is no mention in the BLP article of the television interview she gave in South Africa, I did not write the article, and I have plainly indicated per my opening line that I would support such being included. I'm not arguing about her person or character. I'm stating facts that news organizations have noted that she, and Harry, have been numerous times discussed for exaggerating or outright creating stories (including doubts being cast regarding her statements on her knowledge of the royal family, of Harry being royal, of her not wearing colorful clothes, on her relationship with her father, etc.). I'm not hypothesizing this from the ether, as you say, but noting what numerous news articles have said. It's notable because it has been widely discussed by secondary sources, not because I'm interested in it. With your new edit, you recommended I see WP:NOR, the lede of which contains This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.... I am quite obviously using my understanding of the matter to evaluate article content to be included or excluded, so I'm not certain of the relevancy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    You were proposing content for the article (The Lion King, and the Airline) to promote your plainly unsourced POV contentions about "history" and "character". 'It's sourced' is not a reason for inclusion, it is the floor for consideration. It must be WP:DUE, and it must not be there to promote WP:SYNTH. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    I struggle to believe you genuinely think I was saying that my whole consideration of the matter should be inserted into the article. I was proposing that the content was DUE based on the plainly sourced occurrences that plainly sourced sources have plainly brought themselves to talk about. Such matters are DUE because of the litany of discussion around such matters: to put it simply it is DUE because it is DUE. I would love to hear how inserting a few sentences about secondary coverage of events could be construed as SYNTH, unless you genuinely believe I wanted to copy-paste my original thoughts into the article; which again, is hard to believe. "History" and "character" may have been bad terms to describe sources discussing her, but I feel that it should be very easy to discern my actual meaning here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    The South Africa statement was not made within an interview; it was a documentary. And her stating "nobody has asked me if I'm okay" is a subjective statement of her feeling. No one can dispute that. But her saying second hand that people rejoiced in the streets of South Africa on her wedding day can be disputed. That being said, there's a section on her husband's article that covers his unprecedented interviews. If at the end the consensus is that her interviews can be included as a mean to provide an insight into her personality as a high-profile person, then both The Cut interview and the South Africa comments can be covered, similar to how the Oprah interview has been covered. And by covered I don't mean long paragraphs and essays. Simply brief mentions of what she said. The judgement can be left to the reader. Keivan.fTalk 10:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    Her saying someone told her about it is not disputed, and no you should not lengthen articles after this discussion, they are already bloated. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    That is exactly what has been disputed by every South African member of cast 'and crew' (the South African cast member, the person in question, was not even there, so it is automatically disputed). And the articles will be updated with new information in the future whether you like it or not. Because no bans have been imposed on any of those pages. Keivan.fTalk 15:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    No, you are misconstruing the full actual evidence in a biased way, and blowing some things out of proportion. The actual evidence is consistent with someone saying something and a person not remembering the conversation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    The actual evidence is that she claims to have heard those words from someone that was not even there. That's the actual evidence. Keivan.fTalk 14:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with @Alanscottwalker Cibrian209 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Procedurally, it's odd to have the first question in the RfC here, rather than at the article. There's nothing wrong with a brief mention of the incident (first question) but the lengthy 'he said/she said' is unencyclopedic. Something like "There was controversy over her claim that she had been told that her marriage resulted in rejoicing in South Africa similar to that seen at Nelson Mandela's release from prison in 1990" is quite enough. The fact of the interview isn't worthing including - it's about whether anything said is notable enough to be mentioned in a bio (e.g. the reaction, as here) On the second question - it's a case by case decision on that basis. DeCausa (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    agreed Cibrian209 (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    Weren't you agreeing with another user who was advocating for the content's removal earlier? Because in case you did not understand, DeCausa has no problem with a brief mention of the incident. Keivan.fTalk 16:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    I don't have a problem with a brief mention of the incident either. I think it's reasonable after reading the rationale. I'm not sure why you're upset and taking it personally. Cibrian209 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Cibrian209, I'm not taking it personally. Remember that we are communicating via written words, so always try to assume good faith. What I am trying to do is to figure out what your stance is and whether you are objective in your analysis of the situation. Yes, your account is new, and I hope you carry on with wonderful contributions in the future, but I have seen people creating new accounts to specifically sabotage discussions, which is why I always tend to be careful. In any case, I have started trimming down both articles, including the paragraph that covered The Cut interview. It seems that condensing information is the only answer to this dispute. Keivan.fTalk 17:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Duchess of Swabia at AfD - survived but needs attention

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duchess of Swabia. Although clearly relevant to this project it wasn't tagged as such until I did so a few minutes ago.. PamD 09:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It survived AfD, but the article needs some improvement. It was created in 2010 by The Emperor's New Spy who seems to edit intermittently but hasn't contributed in the last 13 months. Perhaps someone here could explain, in the lead, how the list starts at 876 when the first Duke of Swabia is shown in 909? Not my territory: I saw the list showing up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts, and contributed a brief lead as better than nothing, and a couple of other editors have tidied it up too, but perhaps a nobility enthusiast might like to improve it? PamD 09:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Isabella II discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:Isabella II of Spain#Spain's only queen regnant. You are welcome joining it. --Thinker78 (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Charles III is a GA candidate

ICYMI, Charles III has been nominated for a GA review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion opened regarding early Chinese nobility

There is a proposal to make changes to how surnames of early Chinese figures are displayed in a particular infobox at Talk:Chinese surname#Proposal to make changes to a protected template regarding Chinese surnames that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Folly Mox (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Coronation

Coronation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Separating Ethiopian regnal lists from lists of monarchs

Hi all. Some of you who are familiar with distinguisting regnal lists from lists of monarchs (at least more familiar than I am) may find it interesting to take a look at Talk:List of legendary monarchs of Ethiopia#Scope. Perhaps you could help a hand? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Srnec perhaps you'll find this interesting? You've done a good job writing regnal list in 2018. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Foo of Bar versus List of foos of Bar

Hi, I'm often seeing that many of pages on various Wikipedias are named Foo of Bar (in which foo is a royal or noble title, and Bar the area that title applied to), but also include a List of foos of Bar. This makes such pages both an article about what the title means and the history of the title, and then a list of people who held that title. In a way, that makes them halfway houses between articles and lists, which is quite annoying for categorisation and linking purposes. I myself am somewhat guilty in participating in this, leading to an issue at Wikidata. So how do I prevent such issues, and (help) solve existing issues?

What conventions do we apply in such cases?

  • A. Concise intro about title, then just a list of holders: Surely some introduction to a List of foos of Bar is acceptable and reasonable (e.g. List of kings of Sparta), as long as it's concise, and some claims that could be challenged are supported by RS; but after that, it should just be a list of holders.
  • B. Separate pages about title and about list of holders: If it takes up a lot of space just to explain a title and its history, it's better to separate title and list. E.g. King of France redirects to List of French monarchs, but there is a whole separate article for Style of the French sovereign. Roman emperor is such a large topic that it has several Roman emperor#Lists, and even the main List of Roman emperors is currently being recommended for a split.

At what point should we separate the list of holders from the title article? For example, the lead sections of Duke of Brabant and Count of Flanders may still be acceptable, but Grand Prince of Vladimir#Overview and Grand Prince of Kiev#Background (a lot of which I added myself) seems to be quite a lot. How about Count of Holland, which has two sections that are not entirely devoted to a list of holders? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Signatures of medieval French monarchs

I was looking through Wikimedia and found charters of Philip VI of France, Charles V of France, and Charles VI of France. They all have the kings seals but they also have what looks like signatures beside the seals. Are those the signatures of the kings? ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 19:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Caligula

Caligula has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Monarchies in Europe

Monarchies in Europe has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Infant rulers

Is an infant with a regent considered a ruler? See for instance Chuzi II, who I presume his mother was the regent. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

If there is an underaged royal who becomes the monarch, they will be given a regent, but they are still technically the monarch. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Not a ruling monarch though, I guess. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
We categorise them as Category:Child monarchs. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
My question is regarding the first sentence of the article, which states he was a ruler. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

A discussion which may be of interest to the members of this group can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nicky Hilton Rothschild#Requested move 23 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nicky Hilton Rothschild#Requested move 23 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Louis, Duke of Burgundy#Requested move 26 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Louis, Duke of Burgundy#Requested move 26 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion for William of the United Kingdom

(non-automated message) Greetings, members of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility! I have initiated a move request here that pertains to multiple royals. While participation is optional, I would appreciate any feedback! (Please note that I have not initiated this process before, so I apologize if this message is unnecessary.) Hurricane Andrew (444) 23:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

List of rulers of Provence has an RFC

List of rulers of Provence has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Notification of Llywelyn the Great move discussion

Hello, I have opened a discussion at Llywelyn the Great about moving the article to 'Llywelyn ab Iorwerth'. If you would like to participate please do so, particularly if you are familiar with Welsh history. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Second-longest reigning monarch of Denmark

There is a discussion about including said information in the lead of the page Margrethe II of Denmark. The thread is Talk:Margrethe II of Denmark#Removal of notable length of reign text from lead. Your input is appreciated. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"royal" consorts

Should we remove the word "royal" from lists and categories in which none, or not all, of the consorts were married to an actual king or equivalent royal monarch? Example: Category:Lists of duchesses features the word "royal" 14 times, but dukes and duchesses are obviously below the level of "king"/"queen". On the other hand, should we remove it from lists and categories of consorts which were all royal, so that the word "royal" is redundant? It is clear that "consorts" always refers to dynastic spouses, so there is no need to add "royal" where that is obvious. There is no List of ducal consorts of Foo, and no List of Fooian ducal consorts, anywhere on English Wikipedia. We just don't need the adjective 'ducal'. Why would we need the adjective 'royal'?

  • Cases where "royal" is correct, but adds nothing: For instance, all consorts in List of Belgian royal consorts are royal, so "royal" is not needed to distinguish "royal" Belgian consorts from "non-royal" Belgian consorts, because all of them have been royal.
  • Cases where "royal" is incorrect, and adds nothing: In cases such as List of Hessian royal consorts it is always incorrect to call them "royal", because landgraves and grand dukes are always below the level of "king/queen", and although whether "prince-electors" or "electors" were "royal" or not varied in time and place, it never applied to Hesse. Besides, the word "royal" doesn't really add anything significant or necessary to just saying List of Hessian consorts (which already redirects to List of Hessian royal consorts anyway). "royal" is not needed to distinguish "non-royal" Hessian consorts, because all of them were non-royal.
Many such cases can be seen in both Category:Lists of duchesses and Category:Lists of royal consorts. E.g. why are List of Mexican imperial consorts and List of Luxembourgish consorts categorised as "royal" consorts? None of then were married to kings or queens regnant, only to emperors/empresses regnant, counts/countesses regnant, dukes/duchesses regnant, and grand dukes/duchesses regnant.
  • Cases where "royal" applies only to some consorts, but not others: In the List of Bavarian royal consorts, "royal" is incorrect for all consorts from c. 556 to 1797, and it is only correct from 1797 to 1918. In other words, for a total of 1362 years of Bavarian consorts, "royal" applies only for 121 years, to only 4 out of 99 consorts in total. Therefore, I really don't think "royal" is justified, especially as long as we do not split this list into ducal, electoral and royal consorts, in which case "royal" would be a necessary distinguishing addition. (But I don't see a reason why we should split it; the article is fine as it is. It just has a needless extra word "royal" in the title, which is misleading for 95 out of 99 people mentioned in it).

Proposed solution: Let's just get rid of all mentions of "royal" in every category and list of consorts of Foo or list of Fooian consorts, unless and until there is a separate list for non-royal consorts of Foo or Fooian consorts which makes "royal" a necessary distinguishing addition. Examples:

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Example: Category:Lists of duchesses features the word "royal" 14 times, but dukes and duchesses are obviously below the level of "king"/"queen". That doesn't mean they're not royal. Many European ducal and grand ducal families are considered to be royal families and have royal titles (e.g. Highness). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Granted, but that would mean they are royal for reasons other than being duchesses, and it would only apply in individual cases rather than something we can assume to apply to all duchesses. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Welcome @Surtsicna and Marcocapelle: from the "Bosnian queens" CfR, which inspired me to ask this broader question. As you can see, we currently already have dozens of lists and categories for consorts of monarchs (emperors/kings/dukes/counts etc. male or female) where the word "royal" is not necessary, such as Milan (List of Milanese consorts) and Luxemb(o)urg (List of Luxembourgish consorts). In Category:Lists of duchesses, 53 out of 67 lists do not mention 'royal'. I think Bosnia doesn't need it either. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

My concern is that we are reinventing the word "consort". The word "consort" means "a husband or wife, especially of a monarch", "a companion or partner". One therefore cannot be a "consort of Bosnia". Using such fancy words where plain English would suffice risks confusing people who do not know them; worse yet, using the word incorrectly risks confusing those who do know them. Category:Consorts of Bosnia could reasonably include all married people from Bosnia. Ditto for article titles such as List of Milanese consorts. Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

"a husband or wife, especially of a monarch" is exactly how we are using it, aren't we? Otherwise we would be using "spouse". We are not reinventing anything, it already is plain English. Category:Consorts of monarchs is a child of Category:Spouses of heads of state, and Category:Monarchs, so we are calling any spouse of any monarch a consort, whether they be category:queens consort, category:empresses consort, grand princesses consort, countesses consort etc.
The only other time when English Wikipedia appears to use consort for categorisation purposes is Category:Consorts of deities, and Category:Viceregal consorts (but in some of the Australian and New Zealand cases, the wording "Spouses of Fooian Governors" is preferred). Thus, "consort" has a very strong dynastic connotation, and is rarely – if ever – used outside dynastic contexts (such as deities).
By contrast, I would argue that using fancy words such as "royal" to apply to duchesses is actually reinventing the word "royal". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
If we are using the word "consort" in the sense of "a husband or wife", then we are positively dumb having titles such as List of consorts of Bosnia. One cannot be the spouse of a country. And what does "Milanese spouses" (as in "Milanese consorts") mean? Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Surtsicna on the basic point of English usage: "Milanese consorts" and especially "Consorts of Bosnia" sound strange to my ear. (The latter would be, like, people who were married to Bosnia?) --JBL (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
We are using the word "consort" in the sense of "a husband or wife of a monarch". So if I had been the husband of Helen of Bosnia, I would have been a "consort [=husband of the monarch] of Bosnia". It doesn't mean I was married to the country.
"Milanese consorts" in List of Milanese consorts means "wives of the lords and dukes of Milan". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I should make it even easier. There is no List of ducal consorts of Foo, and no List of Fooian ducal consorts, anywhere on English Wikipedia. We just don't need the adjective 'ducal'. Why would we need the adjective 'royal'? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
... because the construction "consorts of Bosnia" in English doesn't work, that's why. In some contexts, it can be understood that "consort" means "a spouse of a monarch", but when you pair it with "of Bosnia" that overrules the implicit [of a monarch]. I mean, I don't have a theoretical explanation for this, I'm just telling you, as a native speaker of English, how it sounds -- I don't think any native English speaker (at least not of my dialect) would ever write what you're proposing and expect it to be understood in the way you want. --JBL (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
"Consorts of the rulers of Bosnia" means one thing. "Consorts of Bosnia" does not mean the same thing; what it means instead is nonsensical. The theoretical explanation here is that the word "consort" does not mean "spouse of a monarch" and cannot be used in place of that phrase. What "consort" means, per dictionary definitions, is spouse or companion; it being most commonly used in reference to the spouses of monarchs and deities does not alter its meaning. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Despite the fact that we have so many lists of consorts I can understand that it may sound nonsensical when you overthink it. I don't think there is a general solution right now, we'd better develop some further case history - as currently happens for Bosnia. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
You do not have to overthink it for it to sound nonsensical. You just have to know what the word means. Surtsicna (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I thought I knew what "consorts" meant, but now I'm not so sure. See my comment below. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm prepared to go along with Marcocapelle's Alt rename of Category:Bosnian queens to Category:Queens consort of Bosnia as a first step. It could be that I am wrong about List of Milanese consorts and such; that we really need to add something in order to clarify they weren't married to the country, but to whoever was running the country. I do maintain that "royal" is often not the correct word to add, so at least for now I propose a case-by-case approach. We'll see where that gets us. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Observation: I must say that JBL saying that native English speakers wouldn't write or say consorts of Foo or Fooian consorts gives me some pause. It sounds natural to me, but I'm a non-native English speaker, so admittedly, my opinion shouldn't be given too much linguistic weight. I was also surprised to find almost no sources on Google Books or Google Scholar using a formulation like Milanese/French/Bavarian consorts. This raises the question why in Category:Lists of duchesses, 53 out of 67 lists do not mention 'royal' (or 'ducal', 'comital', 'imperial' etc.), yet nobody seems to have noticed until now that this is – apparently – a linguistic problem in English. I think developing some further case history, as Marcocapelle suggests, is the right thing to do. But before we do, I think we can already look at decisions such as why List of Austrian consorts was renamed to List of Austrian royal consorts in 2021, and back to List of Austrian consorts in 2022. I'll start trying to answer those questions now, because they may already contain certain precedents that we should take into consideration when deciding this question. Whatever the case, I'll freely admit that at this point, I'm not as confident that we can just remove the word "royal" from all these lists as I was earlier today. We'll see in which direction this exchange goes. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    This confirms two points of contention we have seen above. 'Consort' can technically mean anyone's spouse, even though it has strong connections with dynastic spouses of monarchs. On the other hand, 'royal' doesn't quite cut it if we are talking about consorts of non-royal dynastic monarchs/rulers, such as dukes (i.e. duchesses consort). The Austrian renamings show the same tension that we see above. Unfortunately, both of them seem to have been undiscussed moves; there is no talk of this on the talk page. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    As far as I can tell, Keivan.f did hundreds of undiscussed moves of Fooian consorts to Fooian royal consorts on 14 January 2021. Some of them have been reverted later, such as the Austrian example above. I do not see any discussion anywhere. Keivan.f just repeatedly said Anyone in Foo who's married is a consort for the first hundred-ish edits, then stopped writing edit summaries altogether, and for the last moves of the day started invoking per WP:TITLECON, perhaps because by that point Keivan.f had single-handedly made Fooian royal consorts the new self-invented standard overnight. If this was backed by consensus, I would have no problem with it, but I don't think it is. These are all bold undiscussed moves, some of which have been reverted since. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    Unfortunately I think this means no consensus-based precedent has ever been set. These undiscussed renamings and partial reversions happened within the last 2.5 years, and nobody else seems to have noticed. I think that means we need to establish a new consensus here for the first time.
    The only precedent I really see is Peter Ormond moving several pages on 28 December 2021 from List of consorts of Foo to List of Fooian consorts because of consistency. But Marcocapelle and I recently established Suggestion B that we should rename/rescope all Fooian monarchs to Monarchs of Foo, especially when there is doubt which one is more correct. E.g. if a noblewoman born in Milan marries a king of Bosnia, she is a Milanese queen consort by "nationality", but surely, we are more interested in the fact that she is a consort of the king of Bosnia, regardless of where she was born. The renaming of Category:Cypriot monarchs to Category:Monarchs of Cyprus confirmed the Suggestion B principle. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    Some lists such as List of Luxembourgish consorts / List of consorts of Luxembourg have never had 'royal' or any other such adjective in the title. Inexplicably, someone did add it to Category:Queens consort at some point (even though Luxembourg has never had any queens or kings), but Aciram correctly removed that miscat in 2020. I cannot help but get the impression that some people associate the word 'consort' automatically with 'royal', 'queen' or 'king', even in countries that have never had kings, queens or otherwise been royal. There is a lot of misnaming and miscategorisation going on here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    PS: This doesn't mean we don't need adjectives such as 'royal' or 'ducal', just that if we do, they should be applied correctly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Dukes, Duchesses, Grand Dukes, Grand Duchesses, Landgraves, Landgravines, Margraves, Margravines, Electors, Electresses, etc., are all still royal, they’re just below the level of rank of King and Queen (and Emperor and Empress, etc.). - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
If so, at what point do we no longer speak of 'royal'? Is every dynastic ruler automatically 'royal'? Royal literally just means "kingly", from French roy = "king". I really don't think it should be applied to any spouse below (or above) the royal (=kingly) level; those are by definition non-royal because they aren't married to kings/queens. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

List of banesses and queens of Bosnia moved to List of medieval Bosnian consorts

Does this help? I don't think so. If I correctly understood what everyone has been saying here, this just means "List of medieval Bosnians who were married". @Surtsicna @Marcocapelle @JayBeeEll you all convinced me that it was important to go for the phrasing queens consort of Bosnia. Where were you during this RM? I could have really used your support. Now a number of people who haven't read this whole discussion (despite me linking to it and explaining everything) have voted to turn it into something else that doesn't help clarify things the way we agreed to clarify them, and you were absent. Of course, you're not required to participate, but I do feel a bit abandoned.... The Milanese RM Talk:List of Milanese consorts#Requested move 13 July 2023 aren't doing too well either (although at least Marcocapelle supports it, thanks!). What can we best do next in order to try and have article/list names and category names of royalty and nobility align better? Right now it's people here and people there having very different discussions. Can we somehow centralise the conversation? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Nederlandse Leeuw this sounds a lot like a WP:TANTRUM because the page didn't get moved to where you wanted it. In any case, consort does not just mean "someone who was married". According to Google English Dictionary (taken from Oxford Languages), "consort" means a wife, husband, or companion, in particular the spouse of a reigning monarch (emphasis my own). And in any case, are your average people going around referring to their husband/wife/spouse as "my consort"? Probably not. I don't see any cause for confusion there. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm to be honest, the first half might look that way, but the comment above wasn't really meant like that. It was more a frustrated admission of failure to accomplish what I was trying and expecting to achieve. I thought I was in it together with the people with whom I thought I had established a consensus here. But they barely participated in the RMs we had discussed above (which they weren't required to, of course, but I had expected them to because we had all agreed here). At the RMs themselves, the consensus I thought we had established here was dismissed as irrelevant, or at least interpreted very differently over there. I didn't expect that, and that was disappointing. At the same time, I tried to be constructive and ask for what we could best do next, because evidently there had been essentially separate, different conversations resulting in separate, different agreements about the same topic. The conclusions about renaming the category and the list are at odds with each other right now.
By the way, I made the exact same argument based on the exact same dictionary earlier, and yet, this was rejected for other reasons, or based on other dictionaries etc. Moreover, I had also argued that the word "consort" wouldn't be used nowadays anymore in modern English except in dynastic contexts, but was also dismissed. So I wish I could agree with you, but unfortunately it's not that simple.
For now, I'm not really looking for taking the lead in solving this question, but if you or anyone else would like to take up the challenge, go ahead. I might participate, but I won't lead. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for David III of Tao

David III of Tao has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility/Archive_10&oldid=1204483212"