This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
She's grandmother of a king & thus notable.--the direct grandparents & grand children of Monarchs are always considered N. Now the article didn't say that, & so it might not have been obvious, but all the pages on the royal families of europe are normally linked one step at a time, but that might not have been obvious either.DGG02:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, I see your chain of reasoning. But could you clarify on why the grandparents and grandchildren of royalty are notable, please? This is not a genealogy database. People do not inherit notability in the same manner that they inherit titles. Salad Days02:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument seems to be used for not just royalty, but presidents and other heads of state and a very few people of similar importance.
Two reasons: just the general interest that readers have in such figures--and it can be very great, hence the popularity of historical fiction that speculates on their inner lives. Recently, this has been emphasizing the women more & and good deal of current popular history deals with them, which both for that and WP is tricky because there is a greater amount of difficulty in finding sources.
Other reason is their important role in human affairs & that the influences on them are worth following up. Again, the women are getting more emphasis these days. For the case of W European royal houses, the historical interconnections in different directions are important--in this case, particular, the family background of George I is very significant with respect to the role he did (and didn't) play in English history & the peculiar nature of Hanover is relevant. The easiest way of following these connections is one step at a time. It is relatively difficult to put them only as sections in articles about others, because there are usually multiple connections sideways as well.
How to deal with this in WP is another matter, because almost all the articles now in WP are stubs from various semi-reliable PD reference books, except where someone has gone and written a real article. There's a great reluctance to do away with the stubs, because articles will eventually be written. There's a new online ed. of Dictionary of National Biography that some of us have access to, and it should encourage this work.
I'm emphasizing what I know about here: and it is just as a hobby)
I do not think anyone here wants to do the work for a real genealogy database, which is an immense project--they would be at a different wiki.. DGG05:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
