Talk:Catherine Stenbock

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	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.

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Is her birthday correct?--V7ndotcom elursrebmem 11:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate referencing format

Please see Talk:Princess Cecilia of Sweden#Reference format! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One source tag

I believe this tag is not an improvement, not neccessary and clutters the top. Will revert again unless convinced. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing: I see, I thought the revert may have been done in error and attempted to revert; I meant no offense. I believe the one source tag fits best for the page, given that the page is reliant on one source for 59 of its 65 footnotes (over 90%). Also, given the incompleteness of the other two sources, I believed the tag made sense. I don't think two tags necessarily clutters the top, especially when they are clustered with the multiple issues tag. I believe this tag is appropriate, but I am willing to consider the converse. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]