Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility

AfD of possible interest

The following AfD may be of interest for the editors in this project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharat Dev Varma. --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the article Nelson Mandela (of interest to this wikiproject) was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review (please see the article's talk page for details). Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on the article's talk page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft at AFC needs help

Please help to review Draft:House of Köröskényi - the sources need to be checked by someone who understands the topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction in Zollern

In looking through the pages to try and tease apart the relationships between the Counts of Zollern, I have found a puzzle:

Frederick XI says that he died in 1401. Frederick X says that he died in 1412, but that Frederick XI succeeded him upon his death. Zollern omits Frederick X from the list of counts, going straight from Frederick IX to Frederick XI.

The German page de:Grafschaft_Hohenzollern includes Frederick X in the list, but also includes the contradiction in dates above.

Does anyone have a source that might help straighten out this line? 1bandsaw (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Huberty, Giraud and Magdelain's "L'Allemagne Dynastique, Tome V Hohenzollern-Waldeck" 1987, p. 30 (a family tree showing the first 16 generations of Hohenzollern males) includes the same anomaly (Friedrich X dies in 1412 but Friedrich XI had died in 1401), yet hints at an explanation: Although all the males of the minor branch descended from Frederick I of Nuremberg (d. c. 1200) were likewise named "Friedrich" down through the 11th generation, each one's numeral is counted from the first Friedrich to rule his branch's appanage. The most senior of these in the 12th century, Count Friedrich VIII of Zollern (d. 1333), had two sons, the elder of whom became Friedrich IX (d. 1379), 1st Count of Hohenzollern, and fathered Friedrich X who left no sons when he died in 1412. But the younger son of Friedrich VIII, uniquely, took no numeral of his own, retaining the old title "Count Friedrich of Zollern" and pre-deceased his brother in 1364/65; one of the book's sources (Europäische Stammtafeln, 1956-57 by Prince Wilhelm Karl zu Isenburg and Baron Frank Freytag von Loringhoven) says the latter shared, rather, in the rule of Zollern with his elder brother Friedrich IX until his premature death. It appears, but is not stated, that his elder son became the recognized co-ruler of his cousin Friedrich X (as compensation for having received no appanage and/or because of incapacity on the part of Friedrich X) and, as such, assumed (or is, historically, attributed) the numeral Friedrich XI although he actually pre-deceased Friedrich X, dying in 1401. Friedrich XI, however, left two sons who jointly succeeded their cousin-once-removed, being Count Friedrich XII (d. childless 1443) and Count Eitel Friedrich I (d. 1439), the latter becoming the ancestor of all subsequent branches of the Princes of Hohenzollern. FactStraight (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ladislaus I of Hungary: peer review

All comments and suggestions are welcome here. Thank you for your time in advance. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sir Peter George Osborne, 17th Baronet

There is an ongoing RM discussion. Join in to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kalolaa-kumukoa#Requested move

Please give an opinion on Talk:Kalolaa-kumukoa#Requested move and check/verify the sources on the issue. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Quatar royalty question

Could someone comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabr bin Muhammed Al Thani? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Spanish dukedoms

I am making a tabulation of Spanish dukedoms; see Dukedoms of Spain. Data is taken from Spanish wikipedia, es:Anexo:Ducados de España. If you have the time, please help in adding data to the table. For consistency, dukedoms which had been re-created have separate entries; the Houses column lists the surnames of the holders of the ducal title, unless there is only one holder, which I marked as "Lone holder". If you could find other dukedoms not yet in the list, add them too. Reigen (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:Edward Bouverie. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your opinions

Could I ask for your opinions at Category talk:Royal children#Age. Thanks. CDRL102 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Jazmin Grace Grimaldi

Can I ask for input at Talk:Jazmin Grace Grimaldi#Media References. Thanks. CDRL102 (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge Aryasb into Abradatas

It has been proposed to merge the article at Aryasb into the article at Abradatas, king of Susa. Discussion at Talk:Abradatas#Merge from Aryasb. --Bejnar (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Jadwiga of Poland

All comments would be appreciated here. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Princess Marie of Hesse and by Rhine (1874–1878)

Why is a religion listed in Marie's infobox?

A four year old toddler who cannot tell time or tie her own shoes is not old enough to have a religion. Paul Austin (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

British or Commonwealth realms

Can we have a final decision on how to describe Elizabeth II & her family, across Wikipedia? Shall we call them (for examples) British monach or Commonwealth realms' monarch? British royal family or Commonwealth realms' royal family? Shall we use Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, or Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or just Elizabeth II (which is confusing when we use a country for other monarchs, btw)? Myself & Miesianiacal, have disagreed on these issues (as recently as at Margarethe II of Denmark), therefore I think we need to clarify things. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good grief. Are you really starting this again?

There's no way to refer to Elizabeth II and her family the same way in all locations in Wikipedia. It's not just inappropriate, it's incorrect to refer to Elizabeth II as "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" on Monarchy of Australia or any other page referencing both Elizabeth II and the monarchy of Australia together or any page on any monarchy other than the British one or any page referencing Elizabeth II and a non-British monarchy together. That, then, extends to pages like Commonwealth realm, wherein Elizabeth II is being referred to along with all sixteen of her monarchies, meaning picking out the United Kingdom to follow her name is completely contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS, unless it's contrasting or comparing Elizabeth II's roles as Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of Jamaica, for example. In places like Margarethe II of Denmark, it should be different again: there, it isn't at all necessary to attach any country to Elizabeth II; "She is currently one of two queens regnant, along with her cousin, Queen Elizabeth II" imparts that information perfectly without the superfluous (and biased) addition of "of the United Kingdom" at the end (a point that would apply equally to "of Canada", "of Papua New Guinea", or any other country of which Elizabeth II is queen). Crafting each instance within the context of the article or paragraphs in which it appears has worked just fine, thus far.

And let's all remember, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was moved to Elizabeth II for a reason, reached after very lengthy discussion with much input. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You & I continously logger-heading on these issues across Wikipedia, is tiresome for both of us. That's why I've asked for clarification here. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I just said I'm fine with the way things have been going for some time now and, to be honest, nobody else has seemed to have a problem with it, either. Except you, that is. Something to consider. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Not using any country descriptives in Commonwealth realms-related articles is understandable. But this shouldn't be the case for non-Commonwealth realms-related articles. Anyways, we'll let others decide. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Let others decide what, other than what we "let others decide" all the time? Wikipedia is collaborative. Hence, I said above crafting each instance within the context of the article or paragraphs in which it appears has worked just fine, thus far.

You're not going to get any "one rule for Commonwealth realms-related articles and another for non-Commonwealth realms-related articles" rule. The United Nations isn't Commonwealth realms-related, but, if there was some mention in some United Nations-related article of Queen Elizabeth's two addresses to the UN General Assembly on behalf of all her realms, it would still be wrong to say "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" gave that address. Ditto for subjects like the familial relationship between Elizabeth II and Margarethe II; their being cousins has nothing at all to do with what country either of them reigns over. So, whether or not it's accurate, appropriate, or purposeful to include "British" or "of the United Kingdom" should continue to be decided on a case by case basis. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue should be decided here. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, there's that classic GoodDay "reasoning" again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Mies can't always have it his way. Though he's tried to, this last decade or so. Now, let's play nice & let others weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Odd of you to address me in the third person.

Anyway, so, this is not about establishing Wikipedia-wide rules that eliminate a problem that affects many editors. It's really about repeated failures over the course of a decade to get things "your way" and you're blaming me for it.

I get (believe me, I do) you're tired of combat with me. But, you misidentify the actual cause of those battles, even as you begin to see how they can be quickly resolved. Or, are you still not satisfied with the results in those two examples? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

We'll let others decide on whether or not, our side-stepping approach, is the best way to end our logger-heading, on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Then, the answer to my question is "no". I'm clearly okay with what you did at Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and Margrethe II of Denmark. I'm also clearly okay with the results of other editors' attempts to appease your want to highlight the UK: "she lives predominantly in the United Kingdom", "she is more directly associated with government in the UK", and others, each depending on the context in which its used. Yet, here you still are, stubbornly fighting. Like I said, you've misidentified the actual cause of the battles you're tired of. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

We'll continue to play it article-by-article, then. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add draft, file and redirect classes for WP Biography

I started a proposal to add draft, file and redirect classes for all WP Biography articles here. This would first help organize any new drafts from the 80 or so articles at Category:NA-Class biography (royalty) articles so we can identify the draft articles more easily. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

AfD for Count de Salis-Seewis

There is currently an AfD discussion regarding an article that may be relevant to this project. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Count de Salis-Seewis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:Jane Lewkenor. Thanks, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

OTRS query

Hey guys,

This was sent to OTRS, but seems better placed for you. Can someone take a look please? Thanks :) Mdann52 (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I know that articles in Wikipedia can edited but given the prominence of the people involved, I am sending this to you with the hopes that you have a way of vetting my opinion for accuracy. I am not an expert in royal titles by an means but I have read quite a bit about them, certainly enough to know they can be confusing. I believe the Wikipedia titles for the current wives of several members of the British Royal Family should be changed . Specifically, I am referring to the following individuals:

Individual	Wikipedia Article Title
HRH, The Duchess of Cornwall	Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
HRH, The Duchess of Cambridge	Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
HRH, The Countess of Wessex	Sophie, Countess of Wessex

In each case, the title of your article for these individuals represent the royal title these individuals would hold if they were to divorce their husband. In using these titles for your article titles, you imply they are divorced. For example, Sarah, Duchess of York is her current title and your article title reflects this. Prior the her divorce her title was HRH, The Duchess of York. The same hold true for Diana, Princess of Wales. Your article title for Diana is her actual title at the time of her death . She was HRH, The Princess of Wales prior to her divorce.

When a female is divorced from a male member of the British Royal family, the HRH (if they held this title) is removed from their title as well as the word The. Their first name is also used where it is not used in their title when they are married. As I mentioned above, this all sounds quite confusing when you first here it and never really become one hundred percent clear for most of us. That is why I would suggest verify what I am saying for accuracy. However, I am sure you would agree that you do not wish to imply they are divorced and by using the title you currently do if what I believe to be the case is accurate.

Article listed for deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hubertus,_Hereditary_Prince_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha Engleham (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos

I noticed at Talk:Imelda Marcos this is now tagged as a WPROYALTY article. Is this correct? I can't seem to find aristocratic status on the article page -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed. DrKay (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, this article has two biographical infoboxes, one for officeholder and one for royalty, do articles contain two biographical infoboxes, and since this doesn't seem to be an aristocrat, should it even use the royalty infobox? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I've merged them. It actually had three infoboxes as the musical artist infobox was also used. It needn't have any. One is acceptable. Two is unnecessary and three is ridiculous. DrKay (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Proper styling for a Prince of Wales

Our article William Pitt the Younger currently contains the text the King's eldest son, Prince George, Prince of Wales, but the title of our article Charles, Prince of Wales would seem to contradict this usage, and I was inclined to edit the wording of the former article to remove the first instance of "Prince" so as to read the King's eldest son, George, Prince of Wales. However, the latter article cites a source whose title is The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (2 vols), and so if this is correct usage I don't want to fix what isn't broken.

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Article titles within this project have their own unique rules for formatting, see WP:NCROY. They don't follow all of the formal rules for the various titles and ranks within each country, but are blended and adapted to help searches within WP. The specific section that applies here is 'Royals with a substantive title' on that page. So the text on William Pitt is correct within usage, and the title of the article on Prince Charles is correct, for WP. 1bandsaw (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Royal family orders has been nominated for discussion

Category:Royal family orders, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for upmerging to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

German Name Vandalism

Even though I despise the racist term "vandalism", it is wikipedia's word for the rule not to intentionally ruin articles. Most of the articles about German Royals, or Germans in General, have their names translated into English. All of the "Friedrich Wilhelms" for example become "Frederick William". Rather, most of them do.

Why?

We do this for no other ethnicity. For other languages, we simply Transliteration (a concept many wikipedia editors said they are unfamiliar with)Translating German names into English is offensive and tantamount to cultural genocide. I am glad they have the original German names listed in parentheses (Which I have fought years for, at the loss of several accounts, but have largely won!). However, the article's titles are clearly wrong.

If my name were Wilhelm, but you called me William, I would offended, and others would be confused as to whom William was. We do not do this with Japanese Royals. Or Spanish. Or any other ethnicity. Then, to make wikipedia look even less accurate, it does not follow this practice 100%. Maybe about 80%-90%. This causes even more confusion. If someone thought a Friedrich Wilhelm was a Frederick William, there can be a redirect. And the article can say "Friedrich Wilhelm so and so (Frederick William in English, Federico Guillermo in Spanish, Frederic Guillaume in French)" ,etc. Though, if his name is Friedrich Wilhelm, I am unsure why the other languages are necessary. Thought it would be much more accurate and intelligent then the current state of wikipedia.

I can easily fix all of the articles myself. However, someone would need to hold the wikigoons at bay for me. Vielen Dank. 2001:558:6012:5A:565:ABEA:FCDE:5BBD (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)