Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility

What is going on with article titles?

I know we had this massive discussion, but that, I think, ended with the initiator pulling out and resulted in nothing. Now we have articles being moved left, right and centre, and quite frankly, I know a lot of editors, including myself I will admit, are tired of seeing articles break convention and removing consistency on Wikipedia. Why do Margrethe II and Frederik X not have the "of Denmark", but Frederick VIII of Denmark and Christian IX of Denmark do? Why does every single Dutch monarch have "of the Netherlands", even though many of them do not have the same name as any other monarch? Why should Nicholas II of Russia be moved to "Nicholas II" because he is the primary topic, even though that would make that article completely inconsistent with all other Russian monarchs articles? It is clear that monarchs without the "of {country}" are monarchs that have ruled in the past 200 or so years, so isn't this bias from Wikipedia, favouring the present? On Wikipedia, it used to be customary for all monarchs' articles to have "of {country}" (unless of course there is an alternate common name like Charlemagne or Alexander the Great). British monarchs were always an exception and to me that seems fair enough since this is the English Wikipedia and they are going to be of most interest to English-reading viewers. I am bringing this to light because I think it is time that we have a proper discussion. I am not calling for an RFC (not yet, at least) nor for an argument, just for a simple discussion so we can commence talks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess it depends. So if you are living in Denmark you might consider Queen Margrethe as "Margrethe II" only using the number to differentiate but maybe for those living outside of Denmark they might use "Margrethe II of Denmark", to differentiate from other world royals. The point is, if you are living in said country, maybe there is no need to us the "of Country", because you are already in that country. I propose all English translated pages use the "of Country" designation. However, this would be difficult for monarchs of multiple countries (e.g. the UK and Commonwealth monarchs). GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose further discussion of this topic - As the initiator of the RfC that is mentioned in the original post, I would like to say the following both to share my experiences with this matter and give a "friendly warning" to other users.

As a human being, I personally agree with what is being expressed. Yes, it is frustrating that not every Wikipedia article on European monarchs follow the same format. But as a Wikipedian, I must respectfully disagree with trying to go back to the (Name) of (Country) format across the board. As noted on WP:COI, Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns. And as frustrating as the RfC outcome that started this recent tidal wave on retitling European sovereigns' articles may be, it was a reflection of WP:CONSENSUS, which is the core of how decisions should be made on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, concerning the proper discussion that is recommended in the original post, I have already started two of these. They did not change the consensus of the community.

Finally, I would like to note that one move discussion each on the Peter Krešimir IV and Ferdinand VI articles were subject to a move review, where the decision to move away from the (Name) of (country) format was upheld.

Now, if after reading this post, a fellow user would still like to start another RfC or other Wikipedia-wide discussion on the titling matter, you are welcome to do so. But expect strong opposition from the community, including from myself. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The change made at WP:NCROY (via RFC) is the cause for all these 'monarch' pages ending up inconsistent, even with monarchs of the same country. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I have called for a revision of the RFC at WT:NCROY. The RFC was narrowly carried by a handful of royal enthusiasts who happen to be watching the NCROY page. The wider Wikipedia community did not participate in it and have been surprised and strenuously opposed it at individual RMs. It is precisely the concern for readers that is driving widespread opposition to this change. They see this change as detrimental to readers. So it definitely needs to be discussed, as this change seems to be rammed through by the interests of a few editors against the wider Wikipedia community and against the interests of readers.

The closure at Ferdinand VII did not endorse the change but only upheld the NCROY policy qua policy rather than going RM by RM. They expressed concern that the RFC did not reflect consensus and recommended the RFC should be revisited. So I have brought it up at NCROY.

Supporters of the change should welcome discussion, as it gives them a chance to explain how their preferred title shortening improves Wikipedia and is supposed to be helpful to readers. Because that is currently not obvious to the rest of us.

I am not sure where the correct location for a new RFC should be, but would like to ensure a new RFC discussion would draw in a wider audience to better evaluate where consensus actually lies. Walrasiad (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you still seeing this? I hadn’t been tracking, but my impression is also that the massive discussion you mention about how (or if) to actually change titles was stopped. So some folks perhaps took the preceding RFC to change guidance, resulting in a 14 for vs 8 against, and went into random RMs. But perhaps it’s just showing that RFC had not captured consensus, and/or that as a guideline it should sometimes be ignored. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox policy for descendants of abolished monarchies

User:GrandDukeMarcelo opened discussions on a few pages eg link, regarding the use of the royalty infobox over the pretender infobox for members of families of abolished monarchies. This kind of discussion has come up before in the history of a few different pages. I think a policy to only use the Pretender Infobox for those making an active claim and/or head of house with a claim would make sense (whether or not a monarchy exists as the word "pretender" at least tells you they are not reigning).

I feel it's incorrect to use the Royalty Infobox for descendants multiple generations down from an abolished monarchy. It would be more correct to not use the royal infobox for these other people as it implies a currently reigning royal family exists and by definition they are not royal. Perhaps a new infobox template could exist or ideally Person Infobox should be used instead. Opinions? D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: "I think a policy to only use the Pretender Infobox for those making an active claim and/or head of house with a claim would make sense". This is your personal opinion. A claim is dictated by those belonging to a line of a defunct house. So, anyone in the "pretended" line can make an active claim really (which in the discussions you refer to, those individuals do make a claim). Therefore, this shouldn't be restricted to just one person (the first one in the pretense line), but extended to those after (making a claim).

As for your second paragraph, no one is suggesting for it to be extended to multiple people. In the case of the discussions I made in those other pages, are only regarding those individuals that are claiming a title (and would be sons of a King). I doubt the children of Dinis of Braganza and Maria Francisca of Braganza would have any titles if Portugal was a constitutional monarchy. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There are other people in a similar position to the children of Duke of Braganza, such as Luitpold Prinz von Bayern, Maria-Anna Galitzine, and Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark who are in a similar position of claiming titles other than the defunct throne, so to treat these people different in terms of which infobox is used seems inconsistent. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. What I am proposing is the pretender option. Does "pretender" only refer to the first in line claiming? Or are we considering these other people? They are not royals though, but they do claim or "Prentend" titles in those defunct monarchies. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the pretender template seems to refer solely to people who claim the title of monarch/head of the house, not other collateral members, as indicated by “thrones claimed” being one of the parameter. So using the pretender template in the manner on the the children of the Duke of Braganza appears to be an aberration. That being said several people who indisputably pretenders don’t have that box, so that’s another whole can of worms. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of said people you mention? Thanks GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I meant for " indisputably pretenders". Not the ones you listed before. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

People like Margareta of Romania, Jean, Count of Paris and Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Margareta and Georg are cut clear. Jean is an Orleanist. There are other two claims to the French throne, from two different branches, the Legitimists and the House of Bonaparte (Bonaparts). Do we consider all the individuals from these three lines claimants? I propose that yes, based on the fact that these were claims present at the time of abolishment. See my comment below for the proposal. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I propose that the Pretender Box to be extended to anyone making a claim to a defunct title. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually anyone at all can "make a claim", the point is that the person with the pretender infobox is actually making that claim and not just in a line of succession where people think they should be making one. I'm also not suggesting it be restricted to just one person there are obviously situations where multiple people in a family tree are making claims and thus would each be pretenders but in say a situation where a father is living it's not typical for their children to be making a claim and if siblings are on good terms with each other (or respecting the hierarchy) only the eldest would be actively making a claim.

I'm also not proposing that my suggestions are exactly what the policy should be to be clear but I am very much in favor an infobox policy existing. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

True, anyone can make a claim. My point and proposals are based in making a claim based on the line and rules existing at the time when the monarchy was abolished. Duarte Pio of Braganza and family follow the rules of succession in place in 1910 (when the monarchy in Portugal was abolished), hence why Maria Francisca places below her brother Dinis, even though she is older, because in 1910 the law preferred males succeeding. I really like and agree with the rest of your comment. Following the logic presented, in the case of Duarte Pio, they all seem to be in good terms. However, this might be tricky for situations like the Savoys and Aostas, or the several lines of the Romanovs. However, I do think the pretender box should still apply in these cases. Thanks for your clear comment! GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, although Maria Francisca, Duchess of Coimbra and Dinis, Duke of Porto do not directly claim the throne (by not being first in line), they claim other titles of Infante of Portugal and the dukedoms. Titles that existed during the monarchy. My proposal to use the pretender box is to be applied to these cases as well and applied to individuals following the succession laws present at the time of abolishment (which the Braganzas seem to be complying). Not to someone pretending or claiming a title that never existed, for example. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel it's incorrect to use the Royalty Infobox for descendants multiple generations down from an abolished monarchy. It would be more correct to not use the royal infobox for these other people as it implies a currently reigning royal family exists and by definition they are not royal. Agree 100%. Unfortunately many of the biographies of such people were originally written in a fantasist style, with lots of fake titles, unsourced, unencyclopedic family trees, and poor quality in-universe sourcing. This doesn't so much require a policy as it requires competent editing by people with a lot of time and energy .... --JBL (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The highlighted comment is a personal opinion. Should the option be to use "Person infobox" then like he suggests? But then what would be the point of a "Pretender box" then? What would be the difference? Would the "Pretender box" only be applicable for someone born during a monarchy time and had those titles for a time, but then the monarchy ceased to exist (e.g. Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece? Please, be more specific. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@170.76.231.175 I would like to leave this user's contribution here, as he left on Afonso, Prince of Beira:

The infobox parameters include “Throne(s) claimed”. He is currently not claiming a throne, his father is. When his father dies, then it can be said that he’s claiming a throne, but until that happens, it doesn’t seem accurate to list him as such. It may be true that the royalty template might not be accurate in this case, but I’m not sure the pretender template, as currently defined, would be accurate either. As pointed out elsewhere, there are many other people in a similar position in being members of a non reigning royal family without being the head, so some consistency should be worked out in how what infobox should be used, as brought up in the wiki project talk page. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That being said, there is the issue of whether a new infobox format could be used, as proposed by the OP or if the existing infobox should be amended. Either way, both would require a larger consensus. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Your comment above: That being said several people who indisputably pretenders don’t have that box, so that’s another whole can of worms. In regards the collateral members, they have the "royalty box". This should not be the case, as they are not royals. Like I said above, I Proposethat the "pretender box" should be used to anyone making a claim to a defunct title, regardless of position on the line of succession (if there is one). GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't so much require a policy as it requires competent editing by people with a lot of time and energy

A policy would avoid a lot of edit warring and endless repetition of this discussion. It would mean we can have something to point to that is generally agreed upon. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to the usage of the “Pretender” Infobox:

- Applicable to a claimant of an existing or defunct title of an existing or defunct monarchy

o Claimant needs to:

§ Have used the title during his lifetime and ceased using it e.g due to abolishment of monarchy.

§ Be first in line to the succession of the throne, either existing or defunct.

§ Be the son or daughter of a sovereign or claimant to the title of King/Queen (e.g. claimant to the title of prince of the realm, whatever realm/country it is)

§ Be eligible based on the succession rules in place at the time of abolishment (e.g. Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark was not born during the monarchy, but if she was, as the daughter of a male Greek prince, she would be a princess)

§ Claimant to any other title, based on the place in the (possible) succession line, e.g.Dinis, Duke of Porto, being the second son of the possible King, can claim the title of Duke of Porto.

§ If there are different possible branches/claims and/or claimants to a succession/and or title, consider the claim/pretence based on that possible alternative line (and rules derivative from that). GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox pretender should only be used for people who are widely known as making an unsuccessful claim to a throne. See pretender for a definition of the word. If we use it for people like Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark, then we are making a statement that her claim to be a princess is false, which it isn't since she is a princess of Denmark even if you think the daughter of the Crown Prince of Greece isn't a princess. Nor is she claiming to be an actual princess of Greece. She knows that Greece is a republic and there is no attempt by anyone to restore the monarchy or claim the Greek throne.

There are too many edge cases to apply the pretender infobox to dispossessed royalty as they are all intermarried with or descended from real royalty and most of them don't make claims to a throne. Wikipedia shouldn't be making value judgements about whether someone's title is valid or invalid unless citations are very clear on the matter. We should simply report that the titles are in use by courtesy or not legally valid in relevant jurisdictions, assuming such statements can be cited. Infobox person should be used for any cases where we can't come to a clear distinction between royal and non-royal. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

In the case of Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza children, would the option then be the Pretender box? GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't even use it for him. He claims to be "His Royal Highness The Duke of Braganza". He's not actually claiming to be "His Majesty The King of Portugal". It is reasonable to claim to be the head of the house of Braganza, given his bloodline. Whether he's accorded the courtesy style Royal Highness as a descendant of a real monarch or the title Duke of Braganza as the head of the house is not for us to decide. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

So what should be done with his and his relatives' articles in regards to the infobox? 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

They are also claimants. Moy not be to the throne directly, but they still claim the Infante and Dukes titles, therefore pretenders. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Some of the other users here seem to disagree on using that box. 2601:249:9301:D570:928:1581:7D4F:E386 (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, there should be no infoboxes for pretenders. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the pretender infobox be deleted and we just use person infobox for the people in question (for both living and historical pretenders)? Please clarify what you mean as it's a bit unclear. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

My choice would be to just use a 'person infobox'. I realize though, this wouldn't be adopted, as we've got pages like Paul, Crown Prince of Greece, Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, etc. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Was Constantine, emperor of Russia?

An editor seems to believe that Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich of Russia was Emperor of Russia from 1-26 December 1825. Historians (and Konstantin's 1823 renounciation) says otherwise. See Konstantin's bio page & List of Russian monarchs, etc. GoodDay (talk) 07:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Notification of discussion here

I am just notifying editors of this discussion here, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Zog I of Albania#Requested move 14 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zog I of Albania#Requested move 14 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor#Requested move 27 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor#Requested move 27 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Swedish Royal children

I have noticed that all the children of the Prince and Princess of all Royal families in Europe have their own articles. While the articles on the children of Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland and Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland have all in AfDs in the part been redirected to their parents articles. Why? And for consistency I propose that we re-create their articles as well. BabbaQ (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably because of WP:INHERIT and WP:INVALIDBIO. "Consistency" is not desirable in this. It should be determined case-by-case. DeCausa (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pharnavaz I of Iberia#Requested move 6 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pharnavaz I of Iberia#Requested move 6 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Isabella I of Castile#Requested move 29 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Isabella I of Castile#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Redirects converted back to articles

I noticed that Princess Mathilde of Schönburg-Waldenburg, Princess Augusta of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, and Theodora of Hesse-Darmstadt which each had AFDs that agreed on turning them into redirects as seen here, here, and here, had them turned back into articles that are more or less article to their previous versions. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I have redirected again and warned the editor. DrKay (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mark Phillips#Requested move 27 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mark Phillips#Requested move 27 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales § Simplicity and concision

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales § Simplicity and concision. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Backlog of requested moves

Several of the requested moves listed on the main page have been open for several months. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. See this AN thread. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sarukhan, Bey of Magnesia#Requested move 9 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sarukhan, Bey of Magnesia#Requested move 9 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Hanoverian princes

Editors are invited to contribute to the discussion at Template talk:Hanoverian princes to decide whether all princes born after March 1914 should be removed from the template, and that similar edits should be made at other navboxes. DrKay (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The question is not, whether individuals born after March 1914 should be removed. The question is, whether people should be added to the template, when even very specific sources like Lines of Succession or Burke's Royal Families of the World does not support the claim that those individuals are to be titled as Prince of Hanover. There is consensus (at least from my point of view), that any individual can be added when there are proper sources for such claim. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The template is for Hanoverian princes not the heads of the house. DrKay (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I never suggested that it is for heads of the house. I have no idea how you come to this claim. I explicitly agreed to add any individual, even born after 1914, when a proper source verifies this claim. I did not wrote Lines of Sucession or Burke's Royal Families of the World and do not know which principles they followed by attributing this titles. But for Lines of Succession I can assure you, that it is not Heads of the House.--Theoreticalmawi (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Adding hyphens to French personal names

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Adding hyphens to French personal names. Ham II (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) - RfC drafting for reversion of the November 2023 change

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) - RfC drafting for reversion of the November 2023 change. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Briannemartindale and articles about royals/nobles

I'm wondering if anyone from this WikiProject might be interested in taking Briannemartindale under their wing and possibly helping them out when it comes to creating articles about nobles/royals. I came across this user at WP:THQ#spelling and grammar help and they seem to need the assistance of someone familiar with this type of article, how its sourced and how to best establish its Wikipedia notability. They seem to be arguing that the Wikipedia notability of the subject's they're trying to create articles about is inherited because they're relatives of someone Wikipedia notable (that's exactly not really true WP:NRVE), but their might be other reasons that some of the subjects being written about are Wikipedia notable. Part of the problem seems to be that Briannemartindale looks to be mainly creating one or two sentence stubs with very few sources cited (e.g. Henry Wentworth, 3rd Baron Wentworth) and then asking others to clean things up on the articles talk pages (e.g. Talk:Henry Wentworth, 3rd Baron Wentworth); I've seen others try to do something similar before and it usually doesn't work too well when it comes to article creation. Many of these articles already seem to have been draftified (probably justified in most cases) to give Briannemartindale a chance to work some more on them, but they don't seem to like that. Given the types of articles and content Briannemartindale appears to be interested in, perhaps they would be interested in becoming a member of this WikiProject. Briannemartidale has already been warned several times over the years about stuff and even seems to have ended up at ANI a few years back. One of the most recent warnings issued is related to poor translating, which actually can lead to problems per WP:TFOLWP and WP:OTHERLANGS if done poorly. Anyway, if someone wants to try mentoring this user a bit, then that would be great. They seem to mean well, and perhaps they be able to turn things around with the help of someone more experienced with these articles. They do seem to need a bit of specialized guidance that probably is something the more general noticeboards like the Teahouse or Help Desk is going to be able to provide. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

yes help is what im needing since my spelling and grammar is very bad due to my strokes that i had several years ago Briannemartindale (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no problem with your "spelling and grammar"? Your problem is not understanding the concept of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

question

i have several drafts that could be included on your drafts page including Henry Wentworth, 3rd Baron Wentworth, Nicholas Audley, 1st Baron Audley, Sir Richard Wentworth , Mary Neville, Baroness le Despencer

help would be much appreciated to get these drafts up and running thanks

thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Any reason you didn't link to Draft:Henry Wentworth, 3rd Baron Wentworth, Draft:Nicholas Audley, 1st Baron Audley, Draft:Sir Richard Wentworth, Draft:Mary Neville, Baroness le Despencer? —Tamfang (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:House of Bjelbo#Requested move 27 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:House of Bjelbo#Requested move 27 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Philip of Sweden#Requested move 29 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Philip of Sweden#Requested move 29 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:James V of Scotland#Requested move 7 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:James V of Scotland#Requested move 7 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

article review/ submission speeds

does anybody know the rough timeframe it takes for a submissions approval in this wikiproject? In the past I have had approvals in days/ just over a week however my current one has been almost a month, just wondering if there was something happening on the back end of Wikipedia?? my page is De'Anyers family. Some formatting errors which i'd be grateful for some help on.. but to my knowledge it is otherwise notable (with links to members pages wikipedia notable) and well sourced. would be grateful for some guidance thank you!!!! Starktoncollosal (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

As stated at that page, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,222 pending submissions waiting for review." DrKay (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Madonna#Requested move 1 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Madonna#Requested move 1 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

a question of quantity

Mere curiosity here: Is it known who had the greatest number of English/Scottish/British/Irish/UK peerages? —Tamfang (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:David III of Tao#Requested move 27 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:David III of Tao#Requested move 27 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

De'Anyers family

Was patrolling this article and couldn't really verify much in this outside of references to books that I cannot access. One of the family, Peter Daniell, has written a book on the family history, but that might not be independent. Was wondering if the WikiProject Royalty and Nobility had any view on it? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I see that @AirshipJungleman29 has nominated it for deletion. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Umberto I of Italy#Requested move 9 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Umberto I of Italy#Requested move 9 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Francis, Duke of Guise#Requested move 14 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Francis, Duke of Guise#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rose Hanbury#Requested move 15 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rose Hanbury#Requested move 15 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Mentions of descendants born after the article subject's death in lede

On James Hamilton, 3rd Duke of Abercorn, I removed the note that he was the great-grandfather of Diana, Princess of Wales on the grounds that he died several years before she was born, citing the various removals from the lede of the article of Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark that he was the paternal grandfather of Charles III, arguing that they never met, and thus had no impact on each other's lives. It was suggested that consensus be gained for this. I posted here instead of article talk page in hopes of getting more discussion. 2601:249:9301:D570:F1A2:5799:7476:D3A3 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that unless the connection has a special significance (such as an inheritance that went direct from person to great-grandson in the case of Louis XIV), such remote connections are not important enough to feature in the lead. DrKay (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed (and I think this is obvious). --JBL (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)