Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots

Name
"Mary" signed letters and documents as "Marie", later: "Marie R (R = Regina). Should this be noted somewhere? I can't find an example now, but I believe she also spelled it "Mari". E.g.:,  Presumably not not "reliable", but here is an example of "Mari R" signature:  136.54.99.98 (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Marie is in a footnote. Mari is shown in the infobox. It doesn't deserve additional coverage. DrKay (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Scot(s|land), pt. 1 million
@Zacwill, sorry about that, hit the button without typing the summary. While I agree it should have a link/a proper summary of the consensus somewhere, it appears that the last part of the first archive of this talk page, as well as throughout the second archive contain the consensus referenced in the infobox comment. Cheers! Remsense  留  12:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Remsense: can you be more specific? I did in fact look in the archives before I made my edit, and I found nothing that addressed the infobox question specifically (with the exception of this, which does not seem like much of a consensus). I note that articles on Queen Mary's predecessors use the phrase "King of Scots" in the same section of the infobox (though there is some inconsistency: see e.g. the article on James V). Zacwill (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's more useful to use that parameter for the office and de facto position held. If it's for title only, then it will cause trouble and inconsistency across other articles, such as using titles for pretenders instead of their actual roles or overly long infoboxes for monarchs who held multiple titles but whose domains can be summarised in a simple unofficial phrase like 'Commonwealth realms'. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While I understand it is helpful to put that there's consensus there, perhaps it would be helpful to state that consensus somewhere distinct, like in the "FAQ" section sometimes seen at the top of talk pages. Remsense  留  21:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, can you tell me where this consensus is to be found? It seems to me like it doesn't exist outside the mind of whoever put that note there. Zacwill (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell you for certain since I am not a major contributor to this article—I will defer to those that might be. Remsense  留  06:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the editor who wishes to make a change who needs to show consensus not the other way about. DrKay (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Was that the case when the infobox was first changed back in 2017, by a single-purpose IP? Points in favour of "Queen of Scots" are that it was the title Mary herself used in both English and Latin. See her letters, seals, and coins. This is in common with other Scottish rulers. "Queen of Scotland" is not a great deviation from this, and is still intelligible to the reader, but I don't see a reason not to use the official title. Zacwill (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In answer to the first question, yes. That's how consensus works: if someone changes it and no-one complains then that becomes the consensus position. The longer the time since the edit, the stronger the consensus becomes. Over six years since the change would count as strong longstanding consensus. DrKay (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The title king/queen of Scots resembles the idea of popular monarchy, where the monarch is thought to reign over a people/nation rather than a specific territory. Dimadick (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, "Queen of Scotland" should be used in the intro & infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Arms: is the escutcheon right?
The blazon of the escutcheon is given as Sable a lion rampant argent on a canton of the last a cross gules. or, roughly, a white lion on a black background with a red cross on a white background in the top left.

But the image of the arms shows a red lion on a yellow background with a border.

Is the problem in the blazon, the arms, or my understanding? Molinari (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'd already corrected one mistake but had missed that one. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

“of Scots” vs. “of Scotland”
Is there a reason in particular that requires “King/Queen of Scotland” to be used in the infobox succession section instead of the preferred style “King/Queen of Scots?” Louis Philippe I had King of the French instead of King of France and all Belgian monarchs use King of the Belgians instead of King of Belgium. Has this been discussed before? If not, is it possible to reconsider the title used in Scottish monarchical infoboxes? AKTC3 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See above |land),_pt._1_million. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The English language
I didn't fly to the United States by an aeroplane. I flew to the United States by air. I didn't come to New York by an automobile. I came to New York by car. I didn't cross the Hudson by a ferry. I crossed the Hudson by ferry. Similarly, Mary didn't cross the firth by a boat. She crossed the firth by boat. This is standard idiom that any native English speaker is familiar with. DrKay (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * And she didn't drive down the freeway in a Tesla. She probably took a coach? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Strange how my addition of the indefinite article would stir up such a reaction. So, if its your intention to educate me in the use of English grammar, your examples should at least be grammatically correct as well. For example, I didn't fly to the United States by an aeroplane. I flew to the United States by air. The sentence “I flew to the United States by air” contains redundancy. The phrase “by air” is superfluous because the verb “flew” already implies that the manner of travel was by air. A more concise and grammatically correct version of the sentence would be: “I flew to the United States.” or, for our grammar lesson, " I travelled to the United States by air".  So, your example "Mary didn't cross the firth by a boat. She crossed the firth by boat." needs examination as well. You're correct, Mary didn't cross the firth by boat, but she did cross by a fishing boat. Now that is grammatically correct although I agree that the accepted phraseology is as you describe. Your final sentence is insulting. Suggest though, that the next time you make a correction such as this to a fellow editor, a simple statement in the edit summary would be sufficient. Bill Reid | (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Mary crossed the firth by a fishing boat" and "Mary crossed the firth by boat" would be grammatically correct alternatives? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC) p.s. if you were Superman you could easily fly to the United States without an aeroplane.
 * I tried a simple statement in an edit summary but you chose to ignore it, making further explanation necessary. DrKay (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think you're referring to my change of "cipher" to "cypher" and your reverting edit comment "correct as it was". I didn't challenge your revert (although I did think about it) so fail to understand what the "you chose to ignore it" comment is meant to convey. Regarding the alternate use of these words, "cypher" is the British use of the word (see Merriam-Webster, entry: cypher, cy·​pher, chiefly British spelling of CIPHER), so as the article carries a 'Use British English' template, that is what we should use. Also see as an example: The Government Code and Cypher School, Bletchley Park. Bill Reid | (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I'm referring to you changing "by fishing boat" to "by a fishing boat" and me changing it back again with a simple edit summary. Look at the edit again. DrKay (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not this edit (labelled "copyedit"), followed by this edit (with no edit summary)? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * These are the article page revisions that are relevant to you and me:


 * 29 April 2024
 * curprev 16:03, 29 April 2024‎ DrKay talk contribs‎ 92,299 bytes −2‎  No edit summary  undothank
 * curprev 15:31, 29 April 2024‎ Billreid talk contribs‎ 92,301 bytes −8‎  copyedit undo


 * 27 February 2024
 * curprev 17:33, 27 February 2024‎ DrKay talk contribs‎ 92,065 bytes −2‎  correct as it was  undothank
 * curprev 17:30, 27 February 2024‎ Billreid talk contribs‎ 92,067 bytes −7‎  copyedit undo


 * I can see no other edit comments that are relevant. Bill Reid | (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think any discussion about "cipher" vs "cypher" might warrant a separate thread? This thread is about "by boat" vs "by a boat"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you admit that you changed "by fishing boat" on 27 Feb at 17:30. I reverted with a simple edit summary at 17:33 27 Feb. You ignored that edit summary and undid the revert at 15:31 29 Feb, making further explanation necessary when I reverted for a second time at 16:03 29 Apr. It is recommended to start talk page discussions rather than use edit summaries as a means of communication if an edit is contentious. See Dispute resolution: "To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale." Hence, everything I have said and done is correct. DrKay (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * DrKay, your edit at 17:33 27 Feb, just reverted "cypher" to "cifer." Your "second" revision at 16:03 29 Apr, which changed "by a fishing boat" back to "by fishing boat", had no edit summary. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Total garbage as anyone looking at the diff can verify. DrKay (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, just partial garbage, I think. Your edit at 17:33 27 Feb also changed "by a fishing boat" back to "by fishing boat" (easily missed, which may be where the confusion has arisen), so I have struck out "just" above. But your other edit at 16:03 29 Apr had no edit summary that I can detect. So that bit is non-garbage? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale." DrKay (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite right. I generally put "see Talk page" or similar. But perhaps there's no written requirement to do so? Although I'm not sure I'd see your edit as "too complex to explain in an edit summary" or "contentious". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: no actual pinnipeds where harmed in the making of this discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)