Talk:Florestan, Prince of Monaco

	Biography portal 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 supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

European Microstates: Monaco

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates 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.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Monaco portal This article is supported by WikiProject Monaco.

On 12 September 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved from Florestan, Prince of Monaco to Florestan. The result of the discussion was not moved..

Possible Plagiarism

This text in this article appears to be taken directly from http://www.philatelia.net/bonapart/plots/?more=1&id=122. It appears that the author of this website may have taken it from a book listed in the Bibliography section of that website, but it is difficult to tell which, if it is the case at all. Chuychuychuy98 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Florestan I

How come Florestan is styled Florestan I ("the first"), when to my knowledge there hasn't been a Florestan II ("the second")? I thought a monarch/Prince was only given an enumeration if there was more than one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.115.174 (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using International dates

The current policy is as per this MoS reference:

If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually [[17 February]] [[1958]] (no comma and no "th"). In the United States and Canada, it is [[February 17]], [[1958]]. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.

Perhaps Nunh-huh is referring to this section on disputes over styles:

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk

The substantial reason for the change in date formats in this article is that Monaco uses the "littleendian" international date format of Day Month Year. In addition, the date formats were inconsistent and I rationalised them, as per my edit summary. --Jumbo 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really needn't spam this one-sided presentation on each article you convert in your crusade. Emulating Monaco's date format is a dubious, rather than a substantial, reason for making the changes you seem intent on inflicting on all articles. It would be appropriate for you to wait until the community comments on what you are doing rather than simply doing as you please. - Nunh-huh 05:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify, please

Florestan received only a small income from his family, so, as it turned out, his marriage to a descendent of one of the old families of Champagne (province) was, in fact, "financially favorable."

Doesn't make sense. Do you mean 'but, as it turned out...' ? Valetude (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved due to consensus. (non-admin closure) Heart ^(talk) 03:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– The title is more concise. Interstellarity (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - We should keep using the Name # of country style, so these monarch article titles are as consistent as possible with each other. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support all but Florestan, which is ambiguous. WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, and WP:COMMONNAME all apply. Titles should not be longer than they need to be. After all, we do not have Donald Trump, President of the United States, not even as a redirect. Surtsicna (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump isn't a monarch. Though CNN & MSNBC news would have you believe otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about being a monarch that requires offices or positions of authority to be appended to one's name. Surtsicna (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The push to remove of country from these monarch article titles, have made a mess among all monarch articles. But, I guess the MOS have been changed to support such inconsistencies. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with GoodDay. Also reduces recognizability for no gain. These are just a list of obscure first names, with little or no indication they are monarchs, e.g. Florestan happens to be also the name of a play, an opera, a fictional character, etc. Walrasiad (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure on most, but definitely Oppose on Florestan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk • contribs)
Oppose moves that violate WP:RECOGNIZABILITY for no gain, based on recent ill-thought and contended amendments to WP:SOVEREIGN. As GoodDay rightfully said, this push for brevity has made a mess out of monarch articles across the board. No such user (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

RfC of interest

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 18:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]