Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide

Nature

Must we have such a rigid style of having articles? Though I do like the way it's done, I believe we can be a bit flexible. Like not all the articles must follow this style and this is just a guideline. We can always tweak the article and someone else will also tweak the article. But we need a standard format though. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 12:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's my thinking. Except less coherent. :D // DBD 13:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro para

The highest title (rather than Prince X, Duke of Y) should go in the intro and earlier titles should not be in the parentheses, but should be in the titles section and introduced as the article progresses. Charles 16:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's a good solution - my suggestion would be that any really common titles be in the intro para - for instance see Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon - the example provided in my fictitious style guide is simply to show how any type of title would be listed there... // DBD 17:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Titles in places outside the UK

What is to happen with those styles that whomever is the Monarch of the United Kingdom also holds outside of the UK - such as in the Isle of Man, Islands of Guernsey & Jersey, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis? --G2bambino 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, your solution, of having headers, fits well with the style of the Honours section, but, I hesitate to point out, the Isles of Man, Guernsey and Jersey are parts/dependencies of the UK. My solution of a link to the Sovereign's styles article provides that further information if so required, but without clogging up the article space. Besides, the Lordship of Mann and Dukedom of Normandy are both considered subsidiary titles of the substantive Crown - if these appear, why not the Dukedom of Lancaster, by which the monarch is sometimes referred in Lancashire? As for the substantive titles you mention, like the sovereignty of the individual Commonwealth realms, HM The Queen is referred to as such in each place, and all of them are listed later on in the article – DBD 18:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I see; I (mis)understood the nature of the Isles of Mann, Guernsey and Jersey to be that they are Crown dependancies, but also separate to the United Kingdom - hence a different territory. The Dukedom of Lancaster, however, I believe, falls within the juridiction of the United Kingdom. This then begs the question: are titles listed by territory or by crown? --G2bambino 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd've thought crown - the dependencies are listed on the crown's wiki page anyway. And also, it isn't begging the question. "Begging the question" is the name of a specific fallacy, which means to argue, assuming in your premises, the truth of your conclusion. You mean "raises the question". It's okay, though, very common mistake - go forth and tell all! :D – DBD 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Too many commas!

It is not necessary to set off every date with commas, and this guide also includes plenty of comma splices. For example: "The Duchess of Nod, died in soon after the birth of their youngest child" is wrongly punctuated. A comma there isn't just unnecessary: it's wrong.

Recently, the article at Prince George, Duke of Kent was edited to conform to this style guide, resulting in sentences like: "He held the title of Duke of Kent, from 1934, to his death, in 1942." Laura1822 17:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The former may be erroneous, but the latter is not. It's just exemplary English grammar... – DBD 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Dan, I didn't mean to step on your toes. I just realized that you both proposed this style guide and edited the Duke of Kent's article. You did solicit discussion! I maintain that the commas in that particular sentence are disruptive, and that stylistically, the template as a whole has so many commas that it is difficult to read. But I've no desire to start an edit war, so I won't start changing anything (please note that I posted here before changing anything!); I will, however, ask several people who might be interested in developing the concept (which is excellent, and you are to be commended) and improving upon it to participate. Kindest regards! Laura1822 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy - I'm aware that my use of proper grammar, punctuation etc. can confuse; I'd really love to have some discussion, input and improvement on the style guide! Cheers! – DBD 16:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it confuses because you are not using proper grammar or punctuation. john k 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I am. Perhaps my manner may sometimes seem peculiar - but that's only because so few use correct grammar these days. Terrible – DBD 18:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to break this to you, but you are not. I'd suggest you review some sort of usage guide and get back to us, preferably with a lengthy apology for subjecting us to your horrible comma usage. john k 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You can start by searcing google for comma usage and clicking on just about any of the links. This one, for instance. john k 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• To be precise, from 1934 is not parenthetical and should not be inside commas; in 1942 can be set off by a comma, but is so short it doesn't have to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Laura and John, the commas are excessive and reduce readability rather than enhance it. DrKiernan 16:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Nice trick. How do you edit from the future? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC) ;->

Trivia and cultural references

These sections won't fly if you're suggesting that they be formatted as lists. The editors at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates hate them. Peer review of George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon has also shown that such sections must be formatted as prose if the articles have any hope of reaching FA status. DrKiernan 16:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Legacy section

See Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward VIII of the United Kingdom#Awadewit

The "Titles, etc." and "Legacy" sections seem unnecessary to me.

DrKiernan 10:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Issue

What is thought about this edit: [1]? Should we rename the "Issue" section as "Children" to make it clearer? DrKiernan 10:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Styles

Should "His Royal Highness" in the Styles section be italicised? DrKiernan 08:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, on Charles, Prince of Wales#Styles I italicised the entire style, then emboldened the commonly-used portions – what do you think? DBD 10:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I like it. It looks a bit too busy, and maybe distracting. I like the way the titles and arms sections look, clean and neat. I think maybe we should do the styles in the same way, with "HRH" in italics but the rest in normal text. DrKiernan 10:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I don't mind that. Wonder if anyone else cares... lol DBD 11:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Birth and death dates

Um. Why are birth and death dates tacked on the end of the infobox like an afterthought? They should be up at the top of the infobox. That is key information about a person, and even if they are royalty, they are people first and kings and queens second. Carcharoth 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Bolding

Why isn't "Forename Middle Names Surname" bolded when it should clearly be per WP:MOS? Neitherday 22:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

MoS says, "Equivalent names may follow, and may or may not be in boldface." We've chosen not to bold the full name, only the ones commonly used, in order to show which of their many names was the used one. DrKiernan 07:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Another Bolding Issue

WP:MOS states "The first (and only the first) appearance of the title is in boldface", but this page has some names being bold the second time as well. This should be corrected so to keep a unified style throughout Wikipedia. Neitherday 22:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I don't mind either way. However, I would support removing the bolding from Son II, and agreeing that the only names bolded should be those of the subject of the article. DrKiernan 07:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

TSHA proposal

Since when I first created the TSHA section, I've learned a great deal. Amoung this, the distinction between title and style, so I've prepared a proposal for reformatting the section here, please take a look and discuss DBD 09:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's over-repetitive. As the lesser titles are so rarely used, does the "Titles" section actually tell us anything we need to know? I suggest keeping your "Styles" section and renaming it "Titles and styles". DrKiernan 10:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just done it on Mary of Teck. DrKiernan 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the bolding of the dates in the "Titles and Style" section necessary? DrKiernan (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can see; especially since it should often link to Duke of Nod. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always bolded to give it distinction. I suppose it doesn't have to be like that but part of me wants to keep it the way it is. I'll leave it to DBD and the senior BR members to discuss though. PeterSymonds | talk 15:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dates in bold, etc.

Firstly, I've just been reverted with this page cited, when it says at the top:

'Whilst it it is recommended it be followed (hit edit this page to see the underlying code), this style guide is only that

This page is only an initial proposal - please discuss its contents here - Thanks - DBDR

Which I don't particularly appreciate, but that's by the by. The substance of the reversions, however, I do take real issue with. The format for the list of styles given here is "Dates in bold: style", which looks dreadful. The dates certainly shouldn't be in bold (bold is for the subject of the article), and having them before the styles puts everything out of alignment (even in the examples given here) - the list of styles looks uneven and disorganised, and in many examples it makes it very hard to tell what the difference is between styles (where the only difference is the insertion of an extra post-nominal, it's easy to spot if the styles are in line and much more difficult if they're not). In addition, having "His Royal Highness" etc. in italics just looks bizarre. I certainly don't see what's wrong with the normal style we use for such lists in normal articles (Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington#Styles, for instance). Proteus (Talk) 16:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know I think the bolding and italics looks quite good, but I'm not that fussed. However, I think the way the Duke of Wellington's list is done is over-cluttered. Noting down a change in his post-noms I think is unnecessary, and makes a very long list and I wouldn't want that out on royal articles.--UpDown (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Titles and styles" subsection

As has been pointed out on royal articles that have actually seen some (frankly much-needed) attention, the "unexplained bullets" format for this section is deeply unhelpful. Especially if it's going to be titled in this way, at which point editors confuse themselves massively about which of the two is being listed here. My modest tweak has already been reverted, but please, if you don't like that solution, put some thought into a better one. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you've misread the revert. It doesn't restore the "unexplained bullets". Celia Homeford (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)