Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Mewulwe edits

Since the death of the heir to the headship of the House of Wurttemberg user Mewulwe has been removing indicators of royal status from his and his father's articles.(Someone else has been depriving the new heir of the "Hereditary Duke" reference as well).Amid this edit-warring,should this project take a stand?12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The German nobility was abolished after World War I... I'm not sure that these people should ever have had any "indicator of royal status." Unless you think Napoleon VII is Emperor of France right now as well. SnowFire (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
We treat titles held in pretense as valid if they have been recognized by reliable secondary sources. – Conservatrix (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Uh... depends on what you mean by "valid". The fact that somebody is "head of a household", sure, or that they would be Emperor or Duke or whatever under the old system, fine. But they should not represented as if they are actually the Duke or the Emperor or the King or whatever, because they plainly aren't; that is the definition of holding a title in pretense. SnowFire (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted the latest edit at Carl, Duke of Württemberg, and invited the warring editors to thrash it out on the talk page, which is the right way to do it. I have no axe to grind and am personally quite happy to run with what the sources use. If editors here are able to help with that, please join the discussion. Bermicourt (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Correct, SnowFire. It would impede upon WP:NPOV if Wikipedia were to arbitrate the legitimacy of princes and governments. We observe the titles in courtesy. – Conservatrix (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Surely if they "self-identify" as princes, then that's what they really are? (don't worry, only joking!). Bermicourt (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
How dare you evoke the Bonaparte family motto! What trouble came from such a small island, and from a man who once despised the French... – Conservatrix (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Titles & Grammar

Can someone please explain the grammatical standards on en-wiki? I was taught to always capitalize titles when they identify a specific person or are associated with a place (King of Spain, Dukes of Artois). Singular and unspecified, capitalized ( The Duke (of Burgundy) fled to Dijon,  The king (of Prussia) seethed with anger). Plural and unspecified, not capitalized ( The kings met at Albany,  The kings of France lie buried at St. Denis). Attached title, capitalized ( Charles, Duke of Nemours,  Louis, count of Provence) - Conservatrix (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't you mean  The Kings of France lie buried at St. Denis? Bermicourt (talk 19:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: No, the kings were specified and thus should be capitalized. Hence and unspecified being italicized. - Conservatrix (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

When listing titles, referring to three individuals:  The dukes of Berry, Provence and Artois are brothers, when referring to all who have been dukes:  The Dukes of Berry, Provence and Artois are often members of the Royal Family. Of this rule I am uncertain. These situational rules make the English language so convoluted. - Conservatrix (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I don't know whether there is a Wiki convention, but I pretty well follow the above as it's what I was taught. Have you come across an issue? --Bermicourt (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I have seen the following: He was king of France from...; Louis, count of Provence; The kings of France. My time is spent on French articles and I believe the French have adopted the habit of lowering their titles, but if not mistaken I further believe period documents capitalize such titles "La Comtesse d'Ogny". - Conservatrix (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
What the French do is largely irrelevant. It's English practice that we follow and I would say you're following the right protocol. Debrett's seem to concur and they're a pretty authoritative source. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy! Look what I found! A relevant policy. – Conservatrix (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica has taken to using "king of England," which is wrong according to my provincial education. I suppose each culture defines its standard. The Bible does not capitalize heaven and earth, the Encyclopedia Britannica does not capitalize titles, and Conservatrix capitalizes everything. – Conservatrix (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Consort infobox headings

Keivan.f and I are disagreeing on a topic that needs consensus. Regarding consorts of royals, for example, Queen Silvia of Sweden, I argue that in the heading of the infoboxes only the first name(s) of the consort shall be used, whereas Keivan.f wants to use the whole maiden names for genalogical reasons. I find this unneccessary, since the whole maiden name is included further down in the infoboxes anyway. There seems to be no conformity on this, as there are examples of both, i.e. Queen Maxima of the Netherlands and Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. I therefore seek other people's opinion on this. I include the initiating discussion from my talk page below. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are edit warring while the issue can be resolved with a simple discussion. First of all, you are right; as titled royals most of the consorts do not use/have a surname, but using their maiden name in the infoboxes has been a practice which I haven't started. Examples include Louise Mountbatten, Mary of Teck, Queen Letizia of Spain, and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. We use their maiden names for genealogical reasons, and personally I don't see a problem in that. Keivan.fTalk 17:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Keivan.f Thanks for starting the discussion, I was about to do the same. I think it might be more suitable at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Let's continue there? --Marbe166 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
It was really good of you to start the discussion here. I would like to see what the other users think. To be honest, it is annoying to see that two different rules are being followed right now in regards to the articles about royal consorts. The deceased ones are mostly titled with their maiden names, and their infobox headings contain their maiden names as well, while the current ones follow the format "Queen X of [Country]" and the maiden names are omitted from infobox headings. I'm not suggesting that pages about the current consorts need to be moved, as that's another issue which needs to be discussed separately, but I think adding the maiden names to the infobox headings would be useful for genealogical reasons and makes the appearance of the articles more consistent. Keivan.fTalk 20:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I ping SergeWoodzing and Surtsicna who moght not be aware of this discussion but might have an opinion to share. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I have recently expressed my opinion - about the names of all living persons - here. As one who dislikes all kinds of inconsistency, which makes WP look like kindergarten, I also agree with Surtsicna (below). Silvia of Sweden would suffice. Or King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. Equality in all forms is nice, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Marbe166. I have to confess that I do not feel very strongly about this. I am much more bothered by the pairings of Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and Queen Silvia of Sweden, Philippe of Belgium and Queen Mathilde of Belgium, etc. Not only are the titles of consorts inconsistent with those of their predecessors, but they are also inconsistent with the husbands. Judging by the titles alone, it is heavily implied that Mathilde is the monarch and Philippe is... something else. Nobody but Wikipedia veterans understands that the format "Queen [Name] of [Country]" denotes a consort. It is entirely counter-intuitive. But I guess this is an off-topic rant. Surtsicna (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You have, indeed, repeatedly made known your strenuous objections, which I think are well understood. Yet what I think is needed is a willingness to address the concerns others have raised, so that a compromise to improve the situation can be forged. When that happens, I believe progress is likely to follow. FactStraight (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Royals Ancestry

Keivan.f keeps removing the ancestry section on some royals pages claiming its unsourced but if you go up the ancestry itself their pages also have an ancestry section which are mostly linked to those ancestors pages so since each person is sourced who their parents are i thing the expanded ancestry should stay and since the section is hidden it doesn't take up anymore room see here [1] and here [2] so i would like consensus to keep or delete the ancestry section going back 4 generation on these pages and basically all the other royals pages עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@AmYisroelChai: If you are so eager to keep them, you must provide reliable sources for them. Take a look at the ancestry section on Diana, Princess of Wales where each person's name is properly sourced in the ancestry chart. I would also like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. It means that while articles about Charlotte's parents or children may have ancestry sections, they do not justify adding an unsourced one to the article about Charlotte. So many of them are unsourced anyway, and have to be removed as well. So instead of reverting my edits, try to find reliable sources which support your addition. Keivan.fTalk 20:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
so you found the one royal where all the ancestry has its own source and besides on their own pages they are sourced as the the child of their parents and they are sourced as the child of their parents etc. עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
You can look at it however you like. The main point is that it must be sourced. Listing a bunch of people who have articles on Wikipedia in a row doesn't mean that they are necessarily related. The issue is reliability and credibility which can only be established through reliable sources not merely through creating an ancestry chart based on Wikipedia articles. Keivan.fTalk 20:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Most of these Ancestry sections and in particularly the table doesnt really add anything of value to the article, if the ancestry is important then it should just be mentioned in the article prose. Hiding the table is normally an admission that nobody actually requires to read it. I know we have a lot of people who love this stuff but is it really encylopedic in an article on an individual, they would be better in a stand-alone article about the familes (if relaiable sourcing could be found) if one really needs to know the interconnection within these individuals. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I think these sections are often irrelevant. Great-great-grandparents are rarely directly relevant to their descendant's achievements. Your point that you can trace the ancestry anyway just highlights how pointless the sections are: the information is elsewhere and there's no reason to repeat it at the biography of an individual. Biographies should be about individuals not that individual's irrelevant and distant ancestry. DrKay (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest that we should recommend not including ancestry sections in articles on individuals. MilborneOne (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
In general I agree with this sentiment. In most cases, it is just gratuitous genealogy coupled with 'other pages have it' justification, and generally a violation of WP:GENEALOGY and WP:PROPORTION. I think there are circumstances where having an Ancestry section with a selective prose description of the relevant relationships may be justified, but in most cases this would not be the case. I think there are some cases, such as a disputed succession with numerous candidates, for which we don't have a stand-alone article), where a chart is helpful, but again only showing the relevant relationships, and I can't think of any circumstance where a cookie-cutter 5-generation chart is needed in any biography. I say this knowing that it flies counter to WikiProject Genealogy, among whose stated goals is the expansion of such charts even to non-royal and non-noble biographies, when I think we should have far fewer (and as others have stated, that those we do have should not be absolved from WP:V compliance). Agricolae (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry sections require sources as much as any other content. That has been confirmed over and over again. I also agree that these sections are more often than not entirely trivial. To establish why Prince Andrew is a prince, we do not need to go back 5 generations; he is a prince because his mother is a queen. When explaining a convoluted succession, Template:Family tree is more useful anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I challenged the addition of ancestry in Prince George of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge‎ and Prince Louis of Cambridge by User:Pjoona11. They have started a talk page discussion at Talk:Prince George of Cambridge, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz&diff=843670905&oldid=843670770
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Edward,_Duke_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha&diff=843151070&oldid=843150264

Margareta of Romania

Recently the article Margareta, Crown Princess of Romania has been moved to Margareta of Romania, without benefit of an RM. Has her status changed? is she now titular Queen of Romania? GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

George and the Regency

Is anyone interested in publishing a new page dedicated to the battle for the Regency? The political conflict is mentioned in brief on the Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz article, but with the many characters involved it really should have its own page. If the 1994 film The Madness of King George can tell this story, surely we can just as well – with citations! – Conservatrix (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Regency Crisis of 1788 redirects to Charles James Fox. – Conservatrix (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this situation. But, what I've understood, George (IV) was misrepresented in the 1994 movie. His relationship with George III, was being portrayed more like the relationship between George II & Frederick, Prince of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Shahanshah RFC

There is currently a request for comment at Talk:Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar#RfC about using the title "Shahanshah", which reads as follows:

Shahanshah (lit. 'the king of kings') is a title that some Shahs (kings) of Iran used and some did not.

The question is:

  1. Should the articles about rulers of Iran, cite a source stating that certain shah did use the title shahanshah or it is OK to use it without a source?
  2. Should the title Shahanshah be used for |succession= in the infobox, or |title= will suffice?

Seems like this project would have some useful input so I'm mentioning it here. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Louis IV of France, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's 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 00:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Talk:Milan I of Serbia

Please come to the discussion and help ascertain if it should be Milan I of Serbia, Milan II of Serbia or Milan of Serbia, all of which are plausible. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Christoph,_Prince_of_Schleswig-Holstein#Notability

If anyone is interested there is a conversation going on here about members of the former German royal family and the use of titles and notability. I am a little confused by this section Christoph,_Prince_of_Schleswig-Holstein#Titles,_styles_and_honours because if nobility has been abolished in Germany should the title be mentioned at all? Should they be mentioned as unofficial titles or colloquial usage? There seem to be quite a few articles with the same sections such as Georg_Friedrich,_Prince_of_Prussia#Titles_and_styles. Any help and references would be helpful. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The nobility was not 'abolished' in Germany. What happened was that their authority, privileges and status were abolished. They continue to exist as ordinary families with a noble ancestry and are allowed to use their titles as part of their surname. The latter is even recognised by other nations as, for example, when "Prince Heinrich of Hanover" was invited to the British Beating of the Retreat ceremony in Hanover as a senior guest. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we are supposed to follow the sources, even though they can be fickle. Bermicourt (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
What would be interesting would be to see how he was referred to at the beating retreat. I could find nothing about this event. Do you have a reference? Dom from Paris (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
He was referred to as Prince Heinrich; I know this from the guest list and because we were introduced. It was probably reported in the local press, but I don't have any references.Bermicourt (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's what I understand, or misunderstand. This fellow's grandfather was, until 1919, the actual duke (Herzog) of Schleswig-Holstein. In that year the nobility was abolished. No, unlike what happened in certain other nations, those who had belonged to it weren't forced to pubicly abase themselves, or to be exiled and/or exterminated; and indeed they could still use their noble-sounding names, but these names had now become meaningless. A few years later, our man's father was born; and I think he was named "Friedrich Ernst Peter, Herzog zu Schleswig-Holstein": I'm not sure, because de:WP seems never to have had an article about him. En:WP has "Peter, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein", in which "Herzog" is translated as if it were meaningful. (By contrast, en:WP has Werner Herzog and de:WP has de:David Duke; readers aren't given "Werner Duke" or "David Herzog".) Now, "Herzog" Peter seems either (a) to have been afflicted by whatever's the [fictional] nobility's parallel to grade inflation, or (b) just to have liked the name "Prinz" -- or for whatever reason, he named his son "Christoph Prinz zu Schleswig-Holstein". I don't claim to know what rules, if any, constrained the naming of newborns in Germany in 1949; but Prinz doesn't seem so strange to me: after all, in Minneapolis in 1958 a Mr and Mrs Nelson legally named their son Prince Rogers Nelson. De:WP has an article about the latter; it's titled not "Prinz zu Minneapolis" or similar, but instead de:Prince. But back to Christoph. De:WP hasn't had an article on him since 2008; the English translates one of his names to "Prince", but not another to "Christopher". This I suspect gives readers the impression that he's a prince. He isn't a prince and he's never been a prince. As I hazily understand it even in a fictional Germany that hadn't abolished this stuff close to ninety years ago he wouldn't be a prince; however, we're dealing with the actual Germany, in which he's free to sport his actual name "Prinz" but in which he is not a noble of any grade. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC) .... corrected Hoary (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
In this context Duke is higher than Prince. The head of the family was the Duke, and all the other male members were princes.
Yes, the nobility was abolished in Germany in 1919, and yes, Prinz and Herzog and Graf and Freiherr and all the rest are legally surnames and not titles. But it seems that socially these titles are still used, by courtesy, even though they have no legal basis. As far as Wikipedia goes, I suppose it just comes down to what is used in reliable sources in English. Presumably this cove gets a mention in Burke's Royal Families of the World? Opera hat (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance about the relative statuses of Herzog and Prinz. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Pardon the brevity of this comment, but are participants in the Royalty and Nobility Task Force truly going to ignore that princes maintain their succession beyond the authority of republican governments? Since when does the Federal Republic of Germany govern the monarchy? – Conservatrix (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Germany has had no princes or monarchy since before this fellow was born. The FRG tends to recognize that historical facts are historical facts; it also lets people name their sons "Peter", "Prinz", or whatever. Some Germans may of course believe in princes, in fairies, or indeed in teapots. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe the fact that Christoph is the genealogical head of that old and very powerful historic dynasty enters into his status as notable (if not noble). Perhaps that too should be discussed here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

And if we all try to cut down on sarcasm, ridicule, irrelevant embellishments, more or less wild excursions into general nomenclature, etc., and try to stick to the subject, some of us will find all this much less tedious to wade through. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Just because a person's title isn't recognised by a regime, doesn't mean they or their title don't exist, even if it's now embedded in the surname. Their ancestors were legally awarded a hereditary title which means the family carries it in perpetuity, even if regimes refuse to confer any status to it. We have lots of hereditary peers in the UK who no longer have any political power or AFAIK any legal status. And we also have lots of party cronies who do have titles that give them the right to sit in the House of Lords. Meanwhile, whatever the law in Germany, I can tell you that people are pretty relaxed there today about these titles being used. Check out the official site of the House of Thurn and Taxis as just one example here. And there are loads of articles, English and German, that use their titles. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's not our WP:POV that counts, it's what the sources use. Bermicourt (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that argument doesn't hold water. In many countries chattel slavery was legal and the offspring of slaves became the property of their parents' master. These masters were given by law a hereditary title to the lives of their slaves and their offspring. No one in their right mind would claim that the descendants of slave owners still have a right to own the descendants of their slaves. Laws of men are not written in stone and evolve and to invoke a law passed by a former jurisdiction is not enough to defend iits consequences' validity today. There is no such thing as a perpetual right in the eyes of the law unless I am very much mistaken (and I am not talking about supposed divine right). It all depends on whether a law remains binding. Also you may want to read Hereditary_peer#Modern_laws which should help you understand the legal status of peers in the UK. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The relevant portion of the constitution is Article 109.[1] Titles were not abolished. What may cause confusion is that all the royals abdicated and renounced their titles of office. Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha for example abdicated in 1918 after which he was referred to by the title of prince. TFD (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but article 109 abolished all privileges and the granting of titles was forbidden. This has nothing to do with abdication. Any titles can only form part of the name so I think that someone who claims a German title of prince or duke is in contradiction with this are they not? If they add Prinz or Herzog to their names then this allowed but they can claim no privileges from a birthright if I understand rightly. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Fortunately Wikipedia is not a court of law, so we can debate the rights and wrongs of this all we like, but the overriding factor is not some legal position, but what the sources use. That leads to a degree of inconsistency which may irritate some, but that is the real world. Bermicourt (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree but we also have an obligation to be factually correct and to say that someone holds a title that they do not legally do so is not a good idea. We can say that the title is used unofficially or colloquially if the sources permit. WP cannot pretend that something has not been abolished simply because we can. WP:Consistency is also part of Wikipedia up to a certain extent. Dom from Paris (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Removing the privileges of titles and not granting new ones is not abolition. In fact the republic as the continuator state of the Empire and the various kingdoms and duchies could have revoked the titles, just as monarchs had in the past, and Austria did with the "Law on the Abolition of Nobility." TFD (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Tsarevna Anna Mikhailovna of Russia

There's a discussion at Talk:Tsarevna Anna Mikhailovna of Russia#Requested move 1 August 2018 at which I'd appreciate input. TIA Andrewa (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Article move with no consensus

I've just noticed that User:Mewulwe has moved Carl, Duke of Württemberg to Carl Herzog von Württemberg without a consensus being reached and by deleting the redirect. The title of this article is contentious as Meluwe and others are aware, so any moves need consensus first. However, not being an admin I'm not sure what the correct procedure is to undo the move. Clearly if a consensus is reached downstream on a new title, it can then be moved in the proper way. Bermicourt (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've moved it back per Wikipedia:Requested moves. DrKay (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh thanks. I knew there must be a process! Bermicourt (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Princess Johanna of Hesse and by Rhine or Johanna von Hessen?

Princess Johanna of Hesse and by Rhine was a fantasy title which she never held as the Grand Duchy of Hesse had been abolished in 1918. She wasn't a Princess so should her article be at Johanna von Hessen? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Describing it as a "fantasy title" is simply a POV. There is no Duchy of Edinburgh, but the UK still has a Duke of Edinburgh; all the peers in the House of Lords have titles but no associated land. Then there are made-up names like Madonna and Prince... The key question is: what do the sources call her? If she had lived longer we could also ask: who does she identify as? Bermicourt (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Quite. It's pure POV to say "She wasn't a Princess". German aristocrats are still commonly referred to using their titles even in Germany. This is the case in most other European former monarchies as well. They may have officially abolished titles, but that doesn't mean they aren't still commonly used or their holders aren't entitled to use them. People can call themselves whatever they like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thread open at House of Bonaparte

I have opened a subject at Talk:House_of_Bonaparte#Problem_with_dates_and_logic because there is some rather illogical information in the article especially the lead and the infobox. I would appreciate some input from members as this page has been the object of tendenctious editing by a subsequently blocked editor (Kuru666) and his probable socks. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Intro to bio articles

A discussion has developed at Elizabeth II, concerning if "Queen of the United Kingdom" should be replaced with "constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom". GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the discussion is what alternative there is to "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", which is at best poor orthography and at worst factual inaccuracy. You mentioned one possible solution, which is the wording from the FA version of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
There's two article links in the current intro, which show it's not all one title. The current intro is "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
If it's not one title, then we have poor orthography, i.e. overcapitalization. And please do not lead the discussion here. Surtsicna (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
We've got more folks attention (I hope) on the Elizabeth II article. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I recommend that further discussion be at the article, so it will be part of that article’s outcome. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Seigneur into Lord

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lord#Merge with Seigneur proposal. Peaceray (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Jahangir, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's 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, 3 September 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

List of wedding guests of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer

Just looking for a sanity check on List of wedding guests of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer, I keep removing a random list of people who didnt turn up. There must be lots of people who didnt turn up for the event but it is hardly encyclopedic. Should we really include this list if they were invited and didnt turn up? Do other royal wedding articles list those that didnt attend?, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not sure how sane it is to have a list of wedding guests as an encyclopedia article. Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
You may have a point they seem to be a recent thing:

I cant imagine that any of these are encyclopedic. Loads of royal weddings that dont have a list. MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not think these articles belong. TFD (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Most European royal wedding articles have lists of guests. The pages devoted specially to guests were probably split off from the main articles due to length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.10.129 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Only the few above are in the royal wedding category. MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The entries in Category:European royal weddings all have lists of wedding guests.

To capitalize or decapitalize in bios

The clear response is that the question is answered by the guidance given at WP:JOBTITLES. The OP has asked a broad question which does not indicate any particular difficulty in applying that guidance. Further, as noted, if there is an issue with the guidance, it should be addressed there. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2019 (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.

Should we capitalize or decapitalize King, Queen, Emperor, Empress, Grand Duke, Grand Duchess etc etc, in the intros of monarchs, per WP:JOBTITLES? GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

My major concern here, is consistency across all the monarch bio intros. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I believe the customary rule is to capitalize if it is part of a formal title... i.e. "King of France" or "Emperor of Russia" and likewise "President of the United States." One also capitalizes if using the title in conjunction with the subject's name... i.e. "Pope Francis" or "President Trump". Otherwise it is typically left lowercase... i.e. "the president" or "the pope." However the rule is different in British English where references to the reigning monarch, i.e. "the Queen," are always capitalized. This will need to taken into consideration in articles that use British English. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree it's usual to capitalise titles, including references to the post itself or a specific individual e.g. "King of England" but "kings of England"; "the King [of England]" married six times (referring to a specific king), but "the king would consult the lords of the land" (referring to kings of England generally) or "the princes of the realm". Bermicourt (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
It's probably the reverse. When referring to the title and the position, sources mostly capitalize (e.g. "the protocol dictates thet the Kiing receives the ambassador" etc), while when referring to a specific monarch, we use lower case (e.g. "Yesterday, the king received the ambassador" etc). It's the practice generally followed also with presidents, prime ministers, ministers, etc, as was noted elsewhere in this thread. Nonetheless, we should take into account the significant difference in the practices followed by British and American English on this issue. -The Gnome (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not see any reason for an RfC when there has been no prior discussion that needs to be resolved. If it is an official title, it should be capitalized; if it is not then it should not. For example, when we mention that Elizabeth II is queen of British overseas territories, it should not be capitalized, because queen of Bermuda etc. is not a title. Ad Orientem, is that British English or the fact that people in the UK capitalize the title of their reigning monarch? TFD (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Ad Orientem and TFD, I do not think it is British English. It is just English. WP:JOBTITLES says titles are capitalized when "used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II". I suppose it would also be correct to write "the President" when referring to a specific president. I agree, of course, that "queen of Bermuda" or "queen of the Commonwealth realms" should not be capitalized. Surtsicna (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
That does not seem to be current usage. See for example, "Behind Trump's as-seen-on-TV presidency" in today's CNN. President is not capitalized. It could be that queen is capitalized out of respect, but that would only be applicable within her realms or by her subjects. TFD (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
One US news broadcaster is not representative of the English language and the second point is sheer speculation. I think we need more comprehensive research to determine what practice(s) authoritative sources follow. Bermicourt (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe a title is lowered when modified by an adjective (e.g. the King, the King is angry, the angry king) but not so when assigned to a place (e.g. the angry King of France). Lowering titles when referring to multiple persons seems logical. – Conservatrix (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Commnent (Summoned by bot) JOBTITLES handles this issue well. Why have an RfC? Coretheapple (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:Advice pages and WP:PROPOSAL: a WikiProject is an unacceptable forum to be having this discussion in, especially when there is already policy language/style guidance (WP:JOBTITLES) more or less on point to the over-arching topic, and even if a clear consensus was reached here, it would not be in any remote way binding upon the editors of individual articles, who would still be free to adopt their own WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the issue. If there is to be any further nuancing of default rules on this issue for the purposes of royal titles, the discussion must take place in either a central community forum or the talk page for the policy language in question; WikiProjects are not allowed to get together and come up with their own idiosyncratic rules for articles they feel are within their purview, without those rules being vetted via the wider community under the normal WP:PROPOSAL process; this is a longstanding principle enshrined in our basic policies on guideline discussion and has been further cemented by past Arbcom rulings. That said, this mistake is made all the time (our policies as a whole clearly need to be more clear about this somehow), so no attempt to call out the OP here should be inferred. Still, this needs to be relocated if it is is to result in an effective consensus. Besides, the editors contributing at WP:MOSBIO (the parent guideline of WP:JOBTITLES) will likely have a lot of constructive advice to offer on this topic.
Then again, it may be that the OP was not looking for a firm rule that could be put forth as a default approach, but was rather just seeking advice on what others think is best practice. That is perfectly fine to do in a WikiProject of course. It's only if the OP hopes this rule will have some degree of default effect that it will need to take place in one of the forums discussed above. Snow let's rap 06:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - Well there is some dispute, so this RFC seems trying to get inputs for royal titles without going into the specific dispute(s) or wider topics re the latest edits of WP:JOBTITLES as deficient, wording issue, not applicable in some cases, and/or WRONG. See recent reverts for List of British monarchs edits — e.g. “George I was king of Great Britain”. There is RS usage and grammar/style guides seem that it should be capitalised if it is (a) followed by a proper name “Queen Victoria” which makes it a personal title, (b) followed by a nation name “Queen of the United Kingdom” which makes it part of a phrase that is proper noun or title (even if not technically correct), or is specifying the person used as a replacement of name / the office “The Queen spoke”. (And there is also RS usage and style guide the other way.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • YES !vote - there should be capitalised form of the royal title within the BLP lead per guidance to use how they are commonly referred to and to state title(s); JOBTITLES needs revision and to not be so US-president-centric or Trump-centric. There should NOT be any special efforts to reword things to either add or to avoid capitalisations given as a mandate or recommendation as if capitals are something wonderful or horrific. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
In my own view, all the MOS really asks for is consistency within an article or a list. Insisting on anything else is inviting a long argument where everyone participating would be better advised to improve articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it's often stronger guidance than that. MOS:JOBTITLES is pretty prescriptive, and in this instance it looks so far that most (though not all) people are in agreement with it (which is not always always the case). The MOS represents a long-debated compromise of style, and while it's absolutely not perfect, it's about as good as it ever really could be given the wide audience and editorship it serves. To my way of thinking, the purpose of the MOS is to minimize per-article debate on style. Obviously that doesn't always happen, but I think a far sight better than what would happen if we didn't have one. CThomas3 (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The most recent edit to JOBTITLES seems a demonstrated failure in practice though — it’s been misconstrued here, taken as a mandate there, caused a lot of inconsistencies and generally seen a number of rejects and reverts and most applicable content seems to still be following other direction. The per-article debate has not been minimized, there has been increased queries and debate on it being wrong or what happened to long-standing guides. It’s not responsible or honest to say its about as good as it could be if that is the measure, because the prior version demonstrated better results in acceptance and consistency in results. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2019 (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.

GA reassessment

Richard III of England, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. ——SerialNumber54129 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Barakzai Dynasty and the Crown Prince of Afghanistan

We have this BLP Ahmad Shah Khan, Crown Prince of Afghanistan (2 sources, one unidentifiable, the other seems also impossible to find, Barakzai dynasty and other articles and templates all asserting that the House/Dynasty still exists. This book[2] says the dynasty ended with the death of the last King of Afghanistan. There's been a sustained effort to push the existence of this dynasty but I struggle to find sources. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

List under attack

An attempt to delete the List of British monarchy records that has thrived for a dozen years has been announced in terms of history-related, United Kingdom-related, and list-related discussions but not those relating to royalty. I hope those here are aware. LE (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Attack!!!
Surtsicna (talk)

Question

I have just joined this Wikiproject and am very excited about it. I do have a question - is there a place to list new royalty articles so other members can look at/improve/edit them as well? Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The page in question is Amon N'Douffou V. --Kbabej (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hoax?

Talk:House of Este Orioles can use more input, if you feel like helping out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Separate templates for princes & princesses

Since this applies to a bunch of different monarchies, figured it might be worth bringing up here. There's currently a weird separation of templates that list over all time princes. A few examples from Category:European royalty and nobility navigational boxes

This doesn't make any sense to me. Who is interested in ONLY the princes, or only princessess by marriage, but doesn't care what time it happened? If there's navigational templates to be had, it'd be by time period; a brother, sister, and brother-in-law are going to have far more in common with each other, and be much more useful links, than a princess born in 1967 and one born in 1745. Yet the existing system puts those three hypothetical royals who likely interacted with each other a lot into three different templates. I recognize it's be a fair amount of work, but any thoughts on slowly reworking these templates into being done era style? SnowFire (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Those templates have bothered me for quite some time and it is possible that this may be the reason. Your suggestion sounds very reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Shane O'Neill (son of Conn) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Shane O'Neill (son of Conn) (the 16th-century Irish king) to be moved to Shane O'Neill, with the latter moving to Shane O'Neill (disambiguation). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion at Talk:Shane O'Neill (son of Conn)#Requested move 28 May 2019. --Scolaire (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES

I posted this at WP:NCROY and someone suggested here as well.

Does anyone want to offer input for MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 ? That recentish add was being read that “Queen of” should be decapitalised to “queen of”.

Full disclosure - I’m thinking it should be capitalised. I think if the specific nation is named then the phrase is a proper noun phrase. And also that “Queen” is a royal title, not a JOBTITLE.

So have any inputs ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Monarchy of Fiji article listed for deletion

The Monarchy of Fiji article has been nominated for deletion here. --Kbabej (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Genealogy

If anyone here is interested, we are looking for volunteers at WikiProject Genealogy. Thanks! Tea and crumpets (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Royal house or family?

What is the difference between a royal house and a royal family? Specifically, I am looking at the subcategories of Category:Royal families, and see a hodgepodge of "families", "houses", and "dynasties". To what extent is there a meaningful difference between these terms, or more specifically how they are being used? Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, there is no difference. That being said, scale seems to be one of the defining differences if you want to find one. Dynasties are, at least generally, the largest unit. This would include things like the greater Capetian dynasty or the Oldenburg dynasty. A house is usually a specific branch of a dynasty, such as the House of Capet or the House of Glücksburg. And a family often refers to either a smaller house, like the House of Artois, or a part of a house that lived simultaneously, such as the immediate royal family at any one time. But in reality, there are no specific rules defining these three terms and they are widely used interchangeably, including on Wikipedia. In my own research, I often switch between the three without distinction.  – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 06:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Black Falcon reading the articles House of Windsor and British royal family may help explain the difference. -- PBS (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
And for that matter, the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and House of Wettin articles. Using my own definitions, I would call Wettin the dynasty, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor the house, and the British royal family the, well, family. Note that whereas a dynasty and house are strictly genealogical in nature and outside the control of members of the dynasty or house (although members can declare other members and branches illegitimate, morganic, etc), the family is entirely an arbitrary construct under the control of its members. – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 07:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the British royal family may be an exception because the term "royal family" is used so extensively by the media that it is just the common term. No one would call it the "royal dynasty" or "royal house" although you hear the phrase "House of Windsor" used from time to time. Bermicourt (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Seeking collaboration/assistance

Greetings to all,

Putting out this message out there to seek collaboration and/or any assistance any of you could offer with regards to two pages: Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad and the Bengal Sultanate. Aiming to better the quality of the former to satisfy the criteria of possible future FA nomination and the later to the quality required for a possible GA nomination. I had worked on the former and helped promote it to a GA in 2012, but given schedule with regards to school and personal life I do not see being able to work on these two alone.

Alternatively copying and pasting this on other relevant WikiProject discussions. Looking forward to your response. Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk!) 07:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Era-style change

There is a discussion to change the era-style on the following articles: Aristobulus I, Alexander Jannaeus, & Aristobulus II. @WikiProject_Judaism#Requesting_consensus_to_change_era-style. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah

There is a discussion @WP:BIBLE#Templates:Kings_of_Israel_(Samaria)_and_Kings_of_Judah to possibly remove Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah completely from articles. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Call for portal maintainers

Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Monarchy? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely becasue of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to help if there is any way a noob can help! Let me know how you need me, I am a good writer and know a ton about current and past monarchies (and am able to cite sources for that knowledge, of course). --EdwardBrighton (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Automatic short descriptions for Infobox royalty

I'm investigating the possibility of adding automatic short descriptions to {{Infobox royalty}} and your input would be highly appreciated at Template talk:Infobox royalty#Automatic short descriptions. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Adi Laufitu Malani#Requested move 3 October 2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Adi Laufitu Malani#Requested move 3 October 2019. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-reigning Royals, Pretenders, Wikipedia Guidelines/Styles, & Consensus

First off, I have been using Wikipedia for over a decade now and though I do not have an account, I am well aware of much of its guidelines especially the ones concerning the articles of the subjects I read a lot about. That said, as royalty & nobility enthusiast, the one very much not subtle thing I have noticed about these articles is the fact that Wikipedia editors who have actively participated in this project use a standardized policy in which the styles used in biographical pages for the royals are based on reliable sources regardless of the legal situation of their respective countries. This means that even pretenders and non-reigning royals will have their claimed titles in article names along with their royal family infobox on the side and the Titles in Pretence box at the bottom of the page. Of course, as a monarchist just like many of you here, I am fully in support of this policy even though some has renounced claims to their non-existence throne (ie. the Habsburgs in Austria) or in some cases, there is no reference in some cases to indicate that the pretenders themselves still claim the throne. After all, the concept of royalty and nobility are social constructs just like the existing laws themselves and thus their relevance and existence depend solely on whether or not human society recognize them while the goal of Wikipedia is recording them using reliable sources such as the mainstream media as proof of their recognition by society at large. However, this policy is not without contention and this conflict is especially visible in pages of non-European royals that unsurprisingly receive less attention from editors than the European ones. You guys might be familiar with a user who tried to challenge this and start a request for comments from years ago in which even Jimbo Wales commented on. For more obvious examples, most articles on pretenders of Indian princely states with the exception of Mysore and Travancore iirc will have unique reminders about the Indian constitutional amendment abolishing titles and privy purses along with a ridiculously long reference note and there are Indian users who are working to actively keep it that way. More recent challenges can be seen in Carl, Duke of Württemberg since my edit just got reversed by republican vandalism. So, I am asking for your support and help in creating a consensus on a final and standard policy regarding the styles of the articles covered by this projects. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. We describe – in Wikipedia's voice – people as royal or noble when in fact their titles haven't had any substance for close to 100 years. In many cases there's no indication that they actually still use the title. People who stumble across those articles are liable to get the incorrect idea that a country still has royalty or nobility. We also seem to assume that people are notable enough for an article based on their claimed title, even though they are not notable for anything else. At the very least we should get into the habit of stating when a title has no legal validity, as you correctly point out is done with Indian articles. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ivar the Boneful:, take Princess Johanna of Hesse and by Rhine, whom I'm sure many German users might argue should be at Johanna von Hessen if she has an article at all. She also gets an article despite being a baby girl, because she is "royalty"... but her family's Grand Duchy had been abolished 18 years before she was born so she were not. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a massive problem with ascribing titles to people who are not normally referred to by those titles in reliable sources. The most recent example where I have been fighting this enormous windmill is Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, where an anonymous user has been insisting on calling the subject a count, despite the man himself signing as Mr Mapelli Mozzi. It is Wikipedia policy to use whichever name is most common in reliable sources. Thus we have Queen Latifah and Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia regardless of whether they really are a queen or a prince. And if an individual is not commonly known as a count, Wikipedia should not call him that. Surtsicna (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New royal article

Hello all. Valentino Riroroko Tuki, King of the Easter Islands has been created. If you'd like to review and make changes, please do! --Kbabej (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Handling changes in gender monarch

Throughout the encyclopedia, there are phrases like "His Majesty's Government" or "Her Majesty's Government."

Would a template like {{countryleadergender|country=</nowiki>}}</nowiki> that returned His or Her be helpful?

This way, if a leader died, one change to the "country-specific" section of the template would be all that is needed.

Obviously, the template would only be useful for countries that it "supported."

Would such a template be helpful? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Jacobite succession

This was assessed as list class. However, I have since then re-written so that, IMO, it’s now a substantive article. Can someone re-assess it please? DeCausa (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

genealogics.org reliability

Banned editor LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs) created many articles sourced solely to genealogics.org, a website that appears to be used somewhat widely within this project. It was the main source cited in Princess Maria Cristina Amelia of Naples and Sicily, an article that was recently deleted as a possible hoax. (Courtesy ping @SouthernNights) Is this website reliable for statements of fact? I didn't see a prior thread. czar 02:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not. As discussed for example at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 5#Two genealogics links, it copies some of its information from wikipedia, and so is WP:CIRCULAR. DrKay (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The vast majority of information on genealogics is not WP:CIRCULAR. That being said, it is just a website, compiled by someone without a particular claim to expertise, and since they died it is essentially crowd-sourced. That means it isn't a reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia, even when (most of the time) it is not WP:CIRCULAR. Agricolae (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Merging royalty infoboxes

There is currently a discussion happening here as to whether the royalty infoboxes and pretender infoboxes should be merged. --Kbabej (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mohammed_bin_Rashid_Al_Maktoum#Rfc

Ongoing WP:Rfc on an article tagged as of interest to this project. Please comment there, thanks, Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 March 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. No support in quite some time. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility → Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and nobility – Noun. PPEMES (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2020 (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.

Merge of charts templates

Help needed. Please see: Template talk:Family tree. PPEMES (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Relevant notability discussion

See Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability of peers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Neville, 11th Baron Braybrooke. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This was closed as keep. --Kbabej (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hraday_Shah_Judeo. --Kbabej (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This was closed as delete. --Kbabej (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Laanui. --Kbabej (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This was closed as withdrawn by nominator. --Kbabej (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles McLaren, 4th Baron Aberconway (2nd nomination). --Kbabej (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This was closed as a redirect to Baron Aberconway. --Kbabej (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

TfD Notice

There are currently two open discussions on whether templates Template:Kings of Israel & Template:Kings of Judah should be deleted or not. Both discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 27. Jerm (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales

All editors are welcome to a discussion regarding the lede sentence of Diana, Princess of Wales, on the talk page (here). Thank you, cookie monster (2020) 755 03:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Báthory article

Elizabeth Báthory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For those that are interested in editing articles about historical figures or just ensuring the accuracy of articles about them (or appropriate tone in articles), see Talk:Elizabeth Báthory#Poor sourcing in, and accuracy of, this article. A permalink for it is here. It could use more eyes. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's 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, 18 May 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Name reversion proposed for current Grandchildren of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

This used to be Grandchildren of Queen Victoria but was changed to its present name (which I consider non-intuitive and unwieldy) a few years ago. Possible alternative names that I would find acceptable are Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert and Grandchildren of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. However, User:Surtsicna has raised the questions of whether the article itself is a directory falling under under WP:NOTGENEALOGY and whether "Grandchildren" should more properly change to something like "Descendants". Those who have their own thoughts are warmly invited to submit them directly to Requested move 25 May 2020. See also the Talk Page section above it from 2018. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I find the use of boldface in that article distracting. Why are almost all names in bold? --Kbabej (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Rulers of the Kingdom of Kongo has been nominated for merging to Category:Manikongo of Kongo

Category:Rulers of the Kingdom of Kongo has been nominated for merging to Category:Manikongo of Kongo. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced promotional bloat at Josaiah Ndubuisi Wachuku

This is too long and too ill written for me to check rapidly as I patrol RC; but if one of you would like to investigate if there's anything salvageable there... Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I've chopped it right back but no doubt the IP will be back to revert. DrKay (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: All those IP edits are block evasion by Lord777 (talk · contribs), so I've semi-protected. DrKay (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Labeling modern descendants of nobility with theoretical titles: NPOV, BLP, NOR and other policy problems

There is currently a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard about titles of pretenders, among other issues that relate to this wikiproject. Your participation would be appreciated. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated sources

These sources are deprecated as unreliable and self-published and should not be used. Paul Theroff’s "online Gotha" is also deprecated. Guy (help!) 13:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC

For interested parties Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#RfC. - dwc lr (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

FAR of Elagabalus

I have nominated Elagabalus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. T8612 (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

My question

Hello dear all,

I've noted royalty are "almost always" or "auto notable" for a long times. In my old day, I've kept many royalty articles, no one can delete member of the royal family articles at the times. But now our golden days is over, Surtsicna and his group deleted a lot of royal family members articles on Wikipedia. I'm very sad for that. Most of the articles are kept at first time nomination! But now his delete voter group are bullying by force and ever gives delete at every AfD. I greatly respected to Bearian and I following his standards for nobility. I really want to know "child of the King" (I means the child of the reigned King, they are called "royal princess or prince") "directed member of royal family" are not notable for now? Cape Diamond MM (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the growing consensus is that non-reigning princes(ses) are not necessarily notable, and we will redirect the article if possible. Reigning princes(ses) still have to be proven notable in some way by significant coverage; for example, by scandal, charity work, or business activities. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear Bearian Greetings, Throne of Burma abolished in 1885. During their reign, they were powerful kings (supreme monarchy) of the state, not equated with the Constitutional monarchy of modern-days countries. The child and consorts (include minior queens and senior queens) of the Bumese King have power and authority than ministers and high-ranking court officials at the royal court. They are recognized as historical princesses (historical figures) in nowadays. When they see princes and princesses at palace or anywhere, they (all the people) have to kneel down and pay obeisance with one's hands clasped palm to palm and raised to touch one's forehead. If you insult them, you will be killed like an ant. So I means princes and princess of the old dynasty are very powerful, unlikely low-level prince or princess of constitutional monarchy. All the child of the King had granted as the "myosa-prince" (duke-prince) of town, e.g see Meiktila Princess, she was granted the appanages of Meiktila and Pyaungpya. See also Burmese royal titles. So they should meet WP:NPOL? Is it WP:INVALIDBIO? How do you think... Tell me your opinion on historical princess or prince of Burma. Thank you so much. DokiRoyal (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the monarchy of Burma. I'm afraid I'm just not as familiar with it as the other countries to which I've traveled in Asia (for example, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia), and for which I always do research. Nor did I take any coursework on the topic. I'm very busy in real life and can't do the research for you. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Why should a member of a royal family be "auto notable"? If a member of a royal family were "auto notable", why should not be a descendant of a famous artist or scientist be "auto notable"? If a person's notability were based on his or her ancestor's notability, should an article be created for each of us? Borsoka (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Surtsicna Pls come on and welcome your opinion. Thanks 136.228.175.231 (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Borsoka As per Bearian answer above, I accepted and agreed Royalty are not auto notable just now, I means descendant of King or Queen, not sons and daughters of full power monarchy. e.g One of King Mindon's daughter Meiktila Princess, she was granted the appanages of Meiktila and Pyaungpya. She have power a lots.136.228.175.231 (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I cannot comment on Meiktila Princess's notability. Above I only commented on the "auto notability" of royal descendants - I think they are not "almost always" notable. Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Barons Ferrers of Chartley

I just came across a potential problem with the Barons Ferrers of Chartley. According to our BFoC page, John, 1st Baron, died in 1325, succeeded by his son Robert, 2nd Baron, and it then continues to the 17th Baron. The problem is that CP (vol. 5, pp. 309-310, also chart after 320) says that John, 1st Baron, probably died in August 1312, succeeded by his elder son John, who would then be 2nd Baron, and it was this younger John whose death between 1321 and 1324 led to the succession of his younger brother, Robert, the person we call the 2nd Baron but by this count the 3rd, a difference that would result in different numbering for all subsequent Barons. Our page on John, 1st Baron, says "Their son Robert de Ferrers inherited the title Baron Ferrers of Chartley upon his father's death from poisoning in Gascony in 1312", citing ODNB for the sentence, but it is unclear if this source is documenting the entire sentence or simply the death date, place, adn cause, and I do not have access to ODNB to be certain what it precisely says. If CP is accurate, it would require moving/renaming of the pages for the 2nd Baron, 3rd Baron, 4th Baron, 5th Baron, 7th Baroness, 8th Baron, and the 15th Baroness. Anyone have access to ODNB or other sourcing that might resolve this disparity? Agricolae (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

ODNB says "His eldest surviving son, John, was still under age in 1321, but had died by 23 July 1324 and was succeeded by his brother Robert (1309–1350), still a minor.": Marios Costambeys (2004), "Ferrers, John de, first Lord Ferrers of Chartley", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved 25 August 2020. DrKay (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
OK then, ODNB and CP are in agreement, and we have a lot of cleanup to do. Agricolae (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirect or smerge

Since so many articles about royalty and nobility have been nominated for deletion, with about 2/3 of them likely to be deleted, and some could be redirected or (s)merged into to a notable relative, what is the best target article? For example, Princess Anne of Grand Fenwick is the granddaughter of the late reigning grand duke Frederick III, while her husband was the prince of Zeeland, a mediatised Holy Roman Empire duchy that no longer exists, her father a prince of the Empire of Brazil, and her mother was Helen, princess of Grand Fenwick. There's three good sources that only briefly mention her as well as two blogs by "royal watchers" and the website of the fashion magazine for which she writes. What's the best place to redirect or merge the article? Her husband, father, mother, or grandfather? Bearian (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  • As a matter of caution, I think young (<60 years) minor nobility and ex-nobility should be by default considered to be smerged to an article on the family. Caution on one side, because many are private individuals and there are BLP issues. And when they are not private individuals, they tend to be business people with businesses unrelated to their nobility and this turns into a WP:CORP issue in trying to pad out a standalone article. Caution on the other side is about throwing away simple non-contentious information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Current AfDs of relevance to this project:

-- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

And a few more:

-- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

And another:

-- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Also:

--Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

-- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


Maybe someone should ask at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting about how to set up a delsort page for this wikiproject. --JBL (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review for Kaʻiulani

Anybody interested in reviewing the article expansion on Kaʻiulani for GA status? It would be nice to post this on the main page as a DYK on the 145th anniversary of her birth on October 16. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

21st century, Wikipedia & monarch bio articles.

With each year (or perhaps each month), it's getting more difficult to maintain bios articles of monarchs. First the article titles have gone inconsistent & now the infoboxes are being tampered with, concerning having predecessor/successor in them :( GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD

Princess Nanasipau’u, fourth in line to the Tongan throne, is up for deletion. If interested in the discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Princess_Nanasipau’u. --Kbabej (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This was closed as a redirect to her father. --Kbabej (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

AfD

There is a discussion happening here on the List of wedding guests of Prince Felipe and Letizia Ortiz for those interested in weighing in on the discussion or making improvements to the article. --Kbabej (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on succession boxes on US presidential biographies (and the future of succession boxes)

An RfC is occurring at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Succession boxes for US Presidents that concerns the inclusion of succession boxes in articles about US presidents. The RfC's outcome may have implications for the future of succession boxes more generally. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the village pump. Thank you. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyone interested in this draft?

I saw this pop up at WP:AfC and was wondering if anyone here would be interested in reviewing or helping the draft creator with fleshing this out: Draft:Ruby Jubilee of Elizabeth II. I'm not into working on royalty related articles, but this seems like it's something that ought to be notable. I mean, FWIW I've heard of this through the course of my general media consumption and I typically don't delve into royalty related reading.

The user in question (@Peter Ormond:) seems to be interested in royalty related articles, so I thought that this would be a good chance to introduce him to the WikiProject as well so he can get some help. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich of Russia

If you have an opinion on the recent back and forthing (no discussion on talk yet), please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Issue

Hi, I'm wondering if there's some kind of guideline anywhere for listing the issue of notable members of noble families on their page. I haven't found anything about it, but I figured that this would be the place to ask. I noticed that some pages list many generations of descendants, even if those descendants themselves aren't notable at all. Just for example, Princess Sophie of Hohenberg lists not only her children, but all the way down to her great-great-grandchildren, born as recently as 2017. I'd understand this in the case of a current royal family, but this particular family has no public function anymore, so it seems to go against WP:BLP to list full names and birth dates of non-notable people, including minors, and I don't see the encyclopedic value of it, either. Again, this seems like something that has some kind of guideline or previous discussion, but I haven't beenable to locate it. Any input would be appreciated! Lennart97 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This is covered by WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The case you mention is completely ridiculous and should be trimmed back significantly. (NB: the view I have just presented is my own; it is not universally held, but I think it is more widely held than its negation.) --JBL (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@JBL: Thanks for your reply. I think you're correct that NOTGENEALOGY quite simply covers this. I'll start trimming the Issue section on Princess Sophie of Hohenberg and other pages where I feel it's necessary. If others oppose this, I'm sure they'll let me know sooner or later :) Lennart97 (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Also relevant, WP:NONAME, WP:BLPNAME - we don't just name people, particularly living people, and give personal details about them simply because they are relatives of someone notable. They have a right of privacy that has a high bar of noteworthiness to overcome. Agricolae (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Agricolae: Thanks! I was thinking about the privacy policy as well, just wasn't sure whether there is an exception for nobility - but it's clear, and makes perfect sense, that there isn't one. Lennart97 (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Victor Emmanuel III and religion

I have to concern over WP:NPOV about the King of Italy that appears to contradict itself on his religious views. I don't know what if he was a Catholic or atheist, because he regardless of the Catholic Church under Fascist rule. Instead, none of the requirements per WP:NOR, unless he was described a Catholic himself. --2001:4452:4AE:8A00:31C8:9235:C1E2:5AB (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't touch Burmese royals, they are 'myosa' and not deposed monarchy crufts

purposeless ranting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What the hell Taingda Princess redirect? TimothyBlue come here!! She was a royal princess of the absolute monarchy not a constitutional monarchy. She was held the "Duke of Taingda and Natmauk" , a high position at Mandalay Royal Court. How much do you need? How much do you know about the royal family of the Konbaung dynasty? Do Note anti-monarchy Wikipedians, Burmese royals were only known by the name of their towns or territories each 'possessed' as liege-lord or myosa, which is equivalent to the position of Duke. All children of the King were held as Myosa (Duke). That is not a purely nominal title or not a PR stunt. It very significant. See also Duke#Equivalents. Moreover, they are not likely to deposed monarchy crufts you knew or defunct princesses or princes of constitutional monarchy. Princesses and princes of Konbaung dynasty have power in their own than ministers and high-ranking court officials and can kill anyone they want.

According to Administrative divisions of Konbaung, The kingdom was divided into provinces called myo (မြို့). These provinces were administered by Myosa (မြို့စား), who were members of the royal family or the highest-ranking officials of the Hluttaw.[1]

So they clearly meet WP:NPOL, and not WP:INVALIDBIO. Today, they are regarded as the historical figures in Myanmar. Why do you judge on them? I copied useful opinions and comments from a discussion for Burmese royal by a respected editor Robert McClenon,

"My inclination is to accept any dead person from the nineteenth or earlier centuries who is documented by historians. That is my answer; your philosophy may vary. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)".

"By the way, a living person from the nineteenth century is an entirely different issue. Either they are 121 years old, or they are said to be at least 121 years old, and are either the sort of hoax that Wikipedia publishes or the sort of hoax that Wikipedia must avoid. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)".

"It is still my philosophy that nineteenth-century royalty who are documented by one reliable source are notable. I would also add that insisting on multiple independent sources for historical figures from Southeast Asia or Africa may maintain systemic bias. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)".

......... MeismE (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Burmese editors no longer active on Wikipedia. I'm only one and trying to protect Burmese articles. That's why I explained about Burmese royals and history. I also want to mention respected editors from Myanmar Hybernator and Hintha. They have full knowledge on Burmese history. MeismE (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
To establish the notability of individual figures, you will need sources covering them. Not appeals to the power they held. Dimadick (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, there is a process for such disputes, and it doesn't involve running around shouting 'what the hell?' and 'how dare you?'[3], nor preemptively putting "stupid dogs . . ." on your own Talk page. Basic civility is expected of all editors. Agricolae (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Replying to Dimadick, Yes we did! According to Wikipedia source guideline, Wikipedia allows to use the books as references. This is an old history, and it can only be found in history books. Many of the historic articles on the wiki using books as references not online news articles. Btw, "the power they held" is clearly meets the WP:NPOL. 136.228.175.5 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Agricolae Sorry, I'm just angry because there are many anti-monarchy and they are trying to delete Burmese royal articles. However they deleted many deposed monarchy crufts in August see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9#Articles for deletion. I welcome that but Burmese royals are different. You know nothing about "History of Burma" because you are not a Burmese. If you have any question on Burmese history, ask to a senior Burmese editor Ninjastrikers. He is currently active and a bureaucrat on the Burmese Wikipedia. 21:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I want to invite another respected editor on royalty Oleryhlolsson for his opinions. 136.228.175.5 (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
What is your brief and neutral statement? The statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to your signature) has several problems, causing it to not be shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography: (i) At over 3,000 bytes, it is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle; (ii) it is very far from being neutral; (iii) it contains the timestamped signatures of other users, which will interfere with the parsing of the statement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Redrose64 I want to discuss on notability of Burmese royals with other editors. Burmese royals were more powerful than other royals. 185.205.141.123 (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I have also been asked to comment by the IP but I am afraid I do not really understand the issue. However, I would say that WP:NPOL is a "subject-specific notability guideline" and only creates a "presumption" of notability (see WP:NOTABILITY). The real issue is whether WP:GNG (aka WP:BASIC) is met in terms of significant coverage in reliable sources (which do not need to be in English). Is that the case here? If the necessary criteria are met, the historicity of a person is irrelevant (cf. Gihanga or even Odysseus). I think it is better to address articles on a case-by-case basis rather than trying to speculate about "all" Burmese royals. I'd add that their "power" is not a helpful indicator in any likely determination. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Brigade Piron Thanks for your comment and opinion! Yes I agree that their "power" is not a helpful indicator in any likely determination, but their "position" would help. Most historical information can only be found in Burmese history books or Scholar papers, can be hard to find in media reports. There is only gossip level media in Myanmar. No one reported about history. However, The Myanmar Times and The Irrawaddy media provide a bit of history. 185.205.141.123 (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, you can discuss on notability of Burmese royals with other editors - discussion is good. That's not what my post is about - the thing is that the RfC statement has a number of problems which are preventing correct display at both WP:RFC/HIST and WP:RFC/POL. Have a look at either page - there are a number of links to ongoing RfCs on various matters, each is followed by a short (or fairly short) statement, and a timestamp - except for this one. There's a link near the bottom, but no statement or timestamp. That is because Legobot (which builds the RfC listings) cannot identify the point where the RfC statement ends on this page, so it assumes that there is no statement at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This is not really an RfC, it is someone ranting about not liking that an article on some nn minor royalty had been turned into a redirect. I have removed the RfC tag. --JBL (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Omo Omo JayBeeEll, LOL minor royalty? Bumese royal family are minor? or Taingda, Duke Princess is a minor? What did you say? btw mm' not nn. 185.205.141.123 (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this person should be blocked for personal attacks and this rant hatted. Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm also pretty strong sure, User Surtsicna is a biggest anti-monarchist on Wikipedia I have ever seen, you always hold WP:IDONTLIKE on Asian monarchy. This discussion is mainly dedicated you. My words touched your heart deeply as arrows?. Shame on you. Please be WP:Civil, Wikipedia is not your mother's house. 185.205.141.123 (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Hay; this is a discussion. If you can't comment on this subject, stay away. Don't disturb. Ok. 185.205.141.123 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This person has already been blocked, actually, and is simply evading their block. Unfortunately, I cannot remember their user name. Surtsicna (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Are you accusing me? There are many Burmese IP editors who loved on Royalty. Do I no longer have the right to discuss? What? are you afraid of your bad? This is a public wifi IP. There are many people using this IP. 185.205.141.123 (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This is next one public IP. 136.228.175.131 (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This is next one tooo. 136.228.175.202 (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This is next one public wifi. 117.18.230.100 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
New one wifi. Ok 117.18.230.104 (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm new IP. So cool? 75.228.175.58 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ Nisbet, John. Burma Under British Rule--And Before; - Scholar's Choice Edition. Creative Media Partners, LLC. p. 153. ISBN 978-1-298-37089-1.
I was asked to comment. Sadly, I know almost nothing beyond what an educated American might know about Burma and Myanmar, and any intrusion into this discussion would be as if I were asked to comment on a cricket article. Therefore, I would prefer not to comment. 18:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Members of this Project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Mountbatten-Windsor

I can see some name changes in the royal family articles like Prince George of Cambridge or Anne, Princess Royal Even in their articles it is clearly stated “members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname” Why we are rewriting history by adding Princess Anne’s article to Mountbatten-Windsor surname which she never use. She married two times. Also their birth certificates (which actually are public documents) doesn’t use Mountbatten-Windsor surname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 18:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This is explained in Mountbatten-Windsor. In that article it is explained (with sources) that both Princess Anne and Prince George’s father have used Mountbatten-Windsor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ex-king Constantine II of Greece and chivalric orders

Hi! I'm Konstantinos, from the Wikipedia in French and I'm really sorry for my horrible English! I am looking for informations about Constantine II of the Hellenes. I'm verifying the ex-king membership to foreign orders and I'd like to know if someone could help me about that topic. The English version of Constantine II's article uses photographes of the orders that the king wears in official occasions, but that kind of reference does not work in the wikipedia in French. Now I think that Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage could be useful, but it is a bit difficult to find it, here in France. Perhaps someone here can consult it (or another book about royalty) ? Regards, Konstantinos (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not an answer to your question (sorry) but with respect to that kind of reference does not work in the wikipedia in Frech, it also should not be acceptable here! (By the way, your English is excellent.) I hope someone else is able to be more helpful to you. --JBL (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
What you need to see is Montague-Smith, Patrick W. (2000). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage. page 86. Unfortunately, I can only see that page via Google Books on snippet view and can only see “Sovereign of the Orders of the Redeemer, St George and St Constantine , George I , and the Phoenix of Greece , has Grand Cross of Order of the Elephant of Denmark , St Olav...” That’s it! DeCausa (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I already used google books and I have the same problem: it only gives very little abstracts. That's why I wondered if anybody is able to consult the paper version in a public library, for example... Here in France, it's nearly impossible... But perhaps someone in Britain? Anyway, it's nice to see that people, here, try to help. Regards Konstantinos (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The Almanach de Gotha 2018 on page 154 notes he is a Knight of the Order of the Gold Lion of the House of Nassau (Luxembourg), it lists some of the other orders but it looks like you have references already for them. - dwc lr (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Do you know if the Almanach refers to the Senegalese and Jordanian orders? I'm not sure of the "level" of knightood of king Constantine in these orders, because Google books does not give enough information... Regards, Konstantinos (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
No those ones aren’t included. Debretts says Grand Cross for those two though. - dwc lr (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks! I couldn't read the whole paragraph before! Thanks, I completed the orders with what you sought. It's wonderful: I didn't think it would be possible! Konstantinos (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Ha! Dw lr’s Debretts’ snippet and my snippet gives the whole list (I think)! DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Prince William, Duke of Cambridge#Baron or Lord Carrickfergus, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Korean queen

Senior queens of Joseon Dynasty

The editor Onel5969 says "Senior Queen consorts of Korea didn't enough for notability" It is ture? see Queen Seonjeong, Gwi-in Park and many more. Really?... one is Goryeo Dynasty Queen and one is senior noble consort of Joseon. For Noble Consort Gwi-in Park, her rank is very high "Royal Noble Consort rank junior" see queen rank 1B on Naemyeongbu (Women of the Internal Court), A high ranking member of the Korean Royal Court clearly passes WP:NPOL. According to the WP:POLOUTCOMES for Monarchs and nobility, There are no special notability guidelines about monarchs, nobility and their descendants. The guidelines for politicians are applied to those who have exercised political authority.
Do note, Joseon dynasty was absolute monarchy, not the powerless constitutional one. So, I hope you don't think yourself that your knowledge of Korean history is as much as Korean historian or local native's. The articles were created by the newbie editor @Ningsih ODINN:. he created many Korean royalty related articles. I didn't see new Korean royal articles for a long time because there are no one create new articles. I'm very glad for seeing Ningsih's nice work. However he poorly sourced the articles but it is not a problem. I think he created that articles with translation content from Korean Wikipedia. It you don't satisfied at source? you can freely tag {{More citations needed}} at the article. We should welcome newbie editors but do not bite the newbie.
I know that the articles missing some information and need expansion should be translation from Korean Wikipedia, but not deletion. Why some editors are don't follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Pls kindly nominate for deletion if you disagree. Btw, I'm from India and as I'm a researcher on Korean's Joseon history, I've some knowledge on Joseon Royal Court. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Amys eye, Deuxbleu I ping great editors of Korean history for their opinion and discussion. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
FYI, I used as a back-door deletion for Queen Seonjeong. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Seonjeong. VocalIndia (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I see the AfD has now been closed as a keep, but I completely agree that they are notable, as is any other royal consort. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks admin for your opinion. I've working in this project for a long time ago. I kept over 30 royalty related articles at AfD. I have never seen the editor who say that the queen consorts are not notable. However I agree that the fact on some "Maharani" (nearly queen consort) are not notable their own. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Under the British Raj, the title of Maharani was more of a ceremonial position in the Princely states of India. VocalIndia (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Frangipani/Frankopan

Experienced editors, especially those with knowledge of Italian and Croatian nobility, are invited to assess recent haphazard edits of the following articles: Frankopan family, Frankopan family tree, Fran Krsto Frankopan, and Frangipani family. Thanks. Meticulo (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogive of Luxembourg. VocalIndia (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Eldest sons of barons has been nominated for discussion

Category:Eldest sons of barons has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ✗plicit 10:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion involving lists of honors on nobility bios

There is a discussion here that may be of interest regarding "Titles, Styles, and Honors" sections on biographies of nobles. JoelleJay (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Per Kusma, this discussion should actually probably be here rather than RSN. Does anyone have any strong objections to removing these sections entirely when there isn't independent secondary coverage of any honors cited in the articles? JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Was Charles I, King of England, Scotland & Ireland up until his execution?

A dispute at List of assassinated and executed heads of state and government, concerning wither Charles I of England, Scotland & Ireland should be included, is in progress. More input would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Queen of Ghana#Requested move 12 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Queen of Ghana#Requested move 12 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Policy discussion regarding Indian princes

There is an ongoing policy discussion regarding how to refer to the scions of erstwhile princely states of India over at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Kings and Princes that may be of interest to many of you here. Please feel free to join the discussion. --StellarHalo (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

Looking for some input concerning a question at this discussion. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria FAR

I have nominated Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Charles Léon

I've worked all morning on overhauling Charles Léon, Emperor Napoleon's illegitimate (yet recognized) son. He is also known as Charles Léon Denuelle de la Plaigne, Count Léon. The article has gone from 1 to 15 sources, and has been expanded from the short stub it was. If this interests you, please review, and I would appreciate someone taking a look at the rating of the article if an editor believes it has moved beyond stub status. Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Kei Komuro

If Kei Komuro married European princess, he will be received the title of duke or prince. But sadly he will marry the JP princess and leave the palace and get a normal life. So not possible to get the article on En Wikipedia. But the marriage article could be. VocalIndia (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Michael of Zahumlje GAR

Michael of Zahumlje has been nominated for a community 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. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent moves & merges

There has been a raft of moves and mergers by Coldstreamer20 in recent days. I think they are a mixed bag:

  1. Anjou was split into County of Anjou and Duchy of Anjou.
  2. Saintonge was split into County of Saintonge and Saintonge (region).
  3. County and Duchy of Nevers and Nivernais were merged into Duchy of Nivernais, which I have undone while leaving the new article in place and moving the first to County of Nevers.
  4. Agenais was moved to County of Agénois, which I have reverted.

Bringing this to this talk page because I'm not sure where else to find interested editors. There is probably validity in the Anjou split, but it leaves us with no article for Anjou and lots of bad links. There is an RM for Armagnac (province) to County of Armagnac, which I can support. Srnec (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sumerian King List has an RFC

Sumerian King List 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. Zoeperkoe (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Solomon#Leadimage

If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cerdic of Wessex/Archive 1#Requested move 26 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cerdic of Wessex/Archive 1#Requested move 26 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge request

Participation is welcome at a proposal to merge Maqpon Dynasty into Skardu. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Duarte Nuno de Bragança#Requested move 6 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Duarte Nuno de Bragança#Requested move 6 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Regents being added to infoboxes

I've noticed in the bios of those who were never monarchs or later became monarchs, somebody has slowly been adding Regent of X or Regent to their infoboxes. I don't dispute that those people were ever regents, but do they really need them added to the infoboxes?. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Well since I’m this said “somebody” I would like to explain why I think they should have info boxes regarding them being regent. Regents were in a lot of ways temporary monarchs most had complete control of government and had much influence over monarch so they effectively ruled the Kingdom until there monarch was of age or was no longer incapacitated by a disease or insanity. Not adding that they were regent would be like not putting an info box for a President or a sovereign. And regents should be shown on the info box of the monarch there were regent for because it shows that though they were monarch they had little to no control over the government during that particular time. Orson12345 (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

We need a licensed updated image at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

To help end a little spat over an infobox image caption. We need an update image of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The current image is before her marriage & thus the root of the caption dispute. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Isabella I of Castile, 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, 21 February 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Prince Pavlos of Greece

Hi! I am quite surprised by something which appears in Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece. It says: "but the [marriage] ceremony proved to be legally invalid and had eventually to be repeated civilly (not normally required in the UK) in Chelsea because of an obscure law requiring that marriages in England be conducted in English" and the sentence is referenced by Marlene Eilers's book Queen Victoria's Daughters. I usually trust Ms Eilers but this is quite surprising and I can't find other reference of this. Can someone verify this point? Thank you very much! Konstantinos (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of current constituent monarchs#Requested move 8 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of current constituent monarchs#Requested move 8 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Tiridataes I of Armenia

I have nominated Tiridates I of Armenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Owana Salazar page

Right now the Owana Salazar page is a mess. This is what I posted on the talk page just now: "I'm not seeing really anything that would actually support this subject resurrecting her ancestor's royal house. The sources for the royal part of her career (versus music) are abysmal. The "Portugal embraces Hawaii's royal house" is a press release from pressreleasejet.com. The Programa – O JANTAR DE REIS Guimarães source is no longer available, but was a blog from Wordpress, and therefore fails WP:RSP. Then there are the issues with the "Marriages and issue" section - there are no sources whatsoever and it looks like OR. I'm tempted to completely remove any mention of this sovereignty/royalty promotion, considering there are no contemporary sources that support it. It's all OR or unsourced, and looks like pure promotion of her restarted royal house. I am interested in hearing other editors thoughts."

I'm interested in hearing other perspectives, but at this point in time it looks to me as if it needs to be almost completely overhauled. --Kbabej (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This analysis looks very reasonable to me. —JBL (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at removing the glaring promo material, press releases, and obvious OR. I'm not sure how reliable the Pasifika Artists source is, given it's her management company. Different websites had all copied the bio they created, so I removed those and replaced with the original. Given WP is using the management company four times in a short article, ideally other sources will be found. Overall, the article doesn't appear that strong once all the promo is stripped away. --Kbabej (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I found the section on her claim to be overly technical and somewhat opaque, so I have tried to replace it with a simpler version - we don't have to present her exact argument or detailed counter arguments, just the general idea of it. (wouldn't object to its removal in its entirety, though) Agricolae (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
We need to be careful about what she is claiming. Based on the cited source, she claims that her mother was named aliʻi nui (monarch) by a sovereignty group, and that her mother in turn nominated her as kuhina nui (something like regent), naming Owana's son as aliʻi nui. The source portrays Owana as supporting this family claim to the crown, not a personal claim, so I think we need to be more nuanced in how we refer to this in the lede (if we even mention it - if she is not claiming the crown for herself, it makes it even less lede-worthy). Agricolae (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Agricolae: That's an interesting distinction I hadn't thought of. I'd support editing it to make it match what the source is actually saying. I couldn't find any actual RS that state she is a claimant to the crown. --Kbabej (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
It is confounded by Owana's own web page (non-WP:RS), in which she claims to be 'head of the royal family', with her son as her heir, blurring the distinction (it is unclear if her claim has evolved over time since our cited source, or if this represents intentional obfuscation). I am not sure how best to represent this ambiguous situation. Agricolae (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure we can use that though, per WP:BLPSELFPUB as it fails the "unduly self serving" test. Claiming you are the head of a royal house is probably as self serving as you can get. --Kbabej (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I get the problem with WP:SPS for self-puffery, but we are already making a direct statement in the lede of what the claim is, and the question is one of accuracy. It would be unduly self-serving were we to add to our article a statement about the claim based solely on an SPS, but that is not the situation here. Rather, we are already reporting that some sort of claim is being made, and in such circumstances it is not uncommon to use an SPS by the subject in order to make sure Wikipedia is not misrepresenting their actual position. My personal preference, however, would be to take it out of the lede entirely. Agricolae (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I would support that. --Kbabej (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Just an FYI that this script has been invaluable in cleaning up the extremely abundant trash sources from nobility articles, since all you have to do is scan for pink highlights in the refs. JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Styles

By my count there are 26 articles on Wikipedia about styles of the form His/Her/Your/Their [Noun]. twenty-two 23 of these are located at "[Noun]", with "[Noun] (style)" for disambiguation where necessary. four 3 are at "His [Noun]". I think the four 3 should be moved to match the other twenty-two 23, creating 26 nice consistently-titled articles.

I was going to just go ahead and do this when I noted these moves were included within a larger failed move proposal from three years ago. I'm minded to open another move request, but this time ignoring the rest of the proposal and concentrating just on the four 3 odd-styles-out.

I don't see a good argument for maintaining the inconsistency, as there's no difference in usage between the set of 26 and the set of four 3 styles, but one could be inferred from the difference in title. It's also against WP:TITLECON: makes the encyclopedia look haphazard and unprofessional.

A major argument against it last time round was that the "pronouns are part of the style". For what it's worth, Debrett's is quite happily using styles of this form without their pronouns when discussing them generally ("... would be entitled to the style Royal Highness and the title ... was created Royal Highness, but ... with the style of Highness and ...", all [4] p. 58) and only applies one when explaining how to it is used. So is the Queen ("... should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with ..." [5]). I don't think Wikipedia should aim to surpass both Debrett's and the Queen in formality, whether or not the argument is technically correct.

However, given the last discussion went down in flames I thought I'd float the idea here first to see what people think and to try to pick the best option to propose. I suggest there are three options (or four, if do nothing counts), and I'm going to list them here in the order of my personal preference.

Option 1: "Naked" style, unpossessed by pronouns

  • Pros: Consistency, only four 3 moves, satisfies MOS:GNL, complies with majority existing precedent
  • Cons: Three more parenthetical disambiguations, doesn't satisfy "pronoun is part of the style" argument

Option 2: Second-person possessive

  • Pros: Consistency, satisfies the "pronoun is part of the style" argument, complies with MOS:GNL
  • Cons: 26 moves, no precedent

Option 3: 3rd-person masculine possessive

  • Pros: Consistency, satisfies "pronoun is part of the style" argument
  • Cons: twenty-two 23 moves, goes against MOS:GNL

Option 4

  • Do nothing
  • Pros: Doesn't require consensus
  • Cons: Doesn't fix anything

Very grateful for comments. Charlie A. (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I've moved one of option one back to its original title because it was moved by the sock puppet of a block evader. DrKay (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I've updated the proposed moves above to account for the change. Charlie A. (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:TWODABS, Imperial Majesty (style) could be moved to Imperial Majesty. DrKay (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. It's been a week now and no-one here has suggested this is a bad idea, so I'm going to go ahead and open a move request for Option 1, and include Imperial Majesty too. Charlie A. (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Done: Talk:His Eminence#Requested move 14 May 2022. Charlie A. (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility/Archive_9&oldid=1215687334"