Talk:Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Frederick V of the Palatinate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
1616 engraving by Claes Jansz. Visscher
1616 engraving by Claes Jansz. Visscher

Created by Unoquha (talk). Nominated by A. C. Santacruz (talk) at 22:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Alternatively, one could use the image alongside as an ALT image: A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A contemporary painting of the 1571 Battle of Lepanto between Christians and the Ottomans by Hans Savery the Elder
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was recently expanded 5x, is long enough and well sourced. The photos are free but they aren't present in the article. Hook is interesting, assuming good faith on offline source cited in article. No copyvio and qpq is done. This hook is ready for promotion without the photo (unless there's another photo in the article that works) with the engraving but not the Battle of Lepanto painting which isn't present in the article. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BuySomeApples the London engraving is present in Wedding_of_Princess_Elizabeth_and_Frederick_V_of_the_Palatinate#Sea-fight_on_the_Thames. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A.C. Santacruz: I see it! Don't know why I didn't notice it before when I looked. Approving the engraving with the rest of the nom. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BuySomeApples and A. C. Santacruz: I'm seeing a lot of direct quotes that aren't sourced at the end of the sentence. I think we should take care of that first? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BuySomeApples and A. C. Santacruz? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron my bad! I'll see what I can do about it tomorrow. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron I'm failing to see the lack of sources for the hook, see section of the article linked above. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A. C. Santacruz: as far as I'm aware, every sentence in the article that contains a direct quote needs to be sourced at the end of the sentence. I could be wrong theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I thought that only applied to the hook, I'll go over the article then and fix Theleekycauldron A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron I added citations to the quotes that lacked them, and then pinged Unoquha so they can go over my edits and make sure I quoted the correct sources (since I don't have access to them). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 10:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes have good citations now, thank you.Unoquha (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 12:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T:DYK/P5

Added citations to quotations that lacked them.[edit]

Unoquha please check to see if I got any wrong. Thanks! :D A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 10:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These further citations look fine, thank you.Unoquha (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 July 2023[edit]

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: no consensus. Per lack of participation. NPASR. (I relisted this because I was going to notify WP English Royalty, but they already were, and this thing has been sitting in the backlog for a week, so no need for relisting.) (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 20:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Frederick V of the Palatinate → Wedding of Elizabeth Stuart and Frederick V of the Palatinate – I boldly moved this a few days ago but it was moved back so let's go through the motions. First of all, Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia was never "Princess Elizabeth" as children of the British sovereign were not known as Prince or Princess until the Hanoverians (with the exception of Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, though that could've been due to the fact he was a male-line descendant of the Danish monarch and thus a Prince of Denmark). In any case, WP:CONSISTENT would tell us to move the page to match with "Elizabeth Stuart". estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 20:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the nominator's argument is correct, given the fact that Queen Mary II was known as "Lady Mary"[1] and Queen Anne was known as "Lady Anne" before their respective marriages and eventual ascension to the throne.[2] But I am also curious to see what the creator of this page User:Unoquha has to say. Keivan.fTalk 23:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree, I do not know of any evidence to support a notion that the word and title "Princess" was not used in Scotland and England before an 18th-century date. Her brother, Henry Frederick, was known as "Prince Henry" both in Scotland and England, and she was called both "Princess" and "Lady Elizabeth" before her marriage. In 1599, the Scottish royal accounts mention items bought for the "Ladie Princes Elizabeth" and "Princes Elizabeth" and the "Princes", as she was then called in the Scots language, some examples here, Letters to King James the Sixth (Edinburgh, 1835), pp. lxxiv, lxxiv, etc. I do not think she was called plain "Elizabeth Stuart" by her contemporaries, and modern historians generally refer to her as "Princess Elizabeth" before her marriage.Unoquha (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It seems that the title was in use to some degree back then, but not in the form we know today. It's like the style Majesty for the monarch which was introduced during Henry VIII's time but it was not used exclusively until later on. Keivan.fTalk 13:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Technically, in the case of her brother, he held the title of Prince of Wales, so that could also be a factor in him being called that.
98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't actually seen any younger children of the monarchs called Prince or Princess, except the Prince of Wales. But nonetheless the title should still be consistent with the main article on her. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

References

  1. ^ "No. 1249". The London Gazette. 5 November 1677. p. 1.
  2. ^ "No. 1065". The London Gazette. 31 January 1675. p. 2. "No. 1143". The London Gazette. 30 October 1676. p. 1.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wedding_of_Princess_Elizabeth_and_Frederick_V_of_the_Palatinate&oldid=1210372364"