Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by King Edward VII/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 07:53, 25 March 2015.

List of Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by King Edward VII

 * Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This article lists those who have received the highest grade of one of the orders of knighthood in the UK at a time when Britain was a leading power in the world; the list includes foreign heads of state, notable British soldiers, courtiers and ambassadors, reflecting the diplomatic relations and social structures of the time. Due to the number of people awarded the honour since it was founded in 1896, it seems sensible to split it into appointments by reign, and this is the first, covering the appointments made by Edward VII (reigned 1901–1910). I believe the article is well-written, with a lead which introduces and summarises the topic well. This article follows the same format as the list of Queen Victoria's appointments which was promoted to FL in October 2014. It is complete and incorporates sorting on the name, country of origin and date of appointment of individuals. Similarly, all items in the list are reliably sourced, as is the lead. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC).


 * Support - Great job. This is a very good list. But how about including birth and death date of the recipents in parenthesises after the name? Since many of the noble receipts share the same first and last name as their relatives it would help clarify who the recipients are when there is no wikilink. See the example below, where the recipient is the father Konstantin von Neurath and not his son of the same name (Konstantin von Neurath).  P. S. Burton  (talk)  18:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments and for the linking you have done on the article. I appreciate what you're saying here, but my concern is that the original source does not specify their birth/death dates and, in some cases, doesn't even give their full names (e.g. Count d'Arnoso); therefore, this would require additional material to support those facts and some of the people, especially the foreign figures, are much harder to track down in reliable reference material (at least anything online). This is especially true where people don't even have articles on their own language wikis. This means that it may simply not be possible to add this information, at least not consistently anyway. Do let me know what you think. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC).
 * Yes. you are probably right that it would be impossible to identify all recipients. P. S. Burton  (talk)  00:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support, —Noswall59 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Comments:
 * I find all the extra Christian names, titles, post-nominals etc rather distracting. E.g. " His Royal Highness Manuel Marie Philippe Charles Amelio Louis Michel Raphael Gabriel Gonzague Xavier Francois d'Assise Eugene, Duke of Beja" could perhaps be "The Duke of Beha (later Manuel II of Portugal)".
 * I have removed the multiple Christian names from royals. I do feel that it works well with civilian/noble appointments, but, if it is a problem, I will remove them.
 * Also the notes could be improved: e.g. (1) I would guess that the Duke of Teck got the award not because he was a captain in the Life Guards but because he was a member of the royal family, and e.g. (2) I'd rather not have to leave the article to find out who Paul Wolff Metternich was. Perhaps combine the "Office" and "Occasion" into one column ("Notes"), rename "Notes" as "Ref(s)", and say something about each one? At the moment, for instance, the table doesn't support the claim in the lead that several future kings were recipients of the honour - one has to click through on every possible name to find them, which isn't good enough from my perspective. BencherliteTalk 13:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Duke of Teck, he probably did get the award because he was in the royal family, but no source explicitly states that; furthermore, I don't suggest that he got the award because of his commission—as the paragraph above the list states, it indicates his branch of service. The office column includes the information provided in the original gazette. I have kept the occasion column separate because it allows people to be grouped by occasion, which couldn't be done otherwise. Again, I can change this, and will do, if you think it's necessary. (See my response to your first point for the issue with the kings).
 * Are we missing a visit to Italy and a visit to France in April/May 1903?
 * Yes, I've added those now.
 * Consider linking to former nations e.g. Austria-Hungary (which is down as "Austria Hungary" in Coudenhove's entry)
 * Done with Austria-Hungary, German Empire and Russian Empire.
 * Should the title omit the word "King" per the main article Edward VII?
 * How would I rectify this?
 * Shouldn't we have urls pointing us to the ODNB biographies where you're using it as a source?
 * Done, with subscription needed tag added.
 * Citation 9 isn't required, and if you want to retain it, it should be a note not a citation
 * Retained as a note
 * Citation 10 isn't required, because the lead is taken to be sourced from the table below already - we don't need to say that specifically.
 * Removed
 * Why do we need to know about women or the 1984 renaming of the lowest order? Neither are relevant here. Perhaps trim it right down to something like this:
 * I thought it was best to give a general overview, but I have changed to your version.
 * Why is Salisbury "Amongst the most notable of the civilian appointments"?
 * I have removed the "most notable" statement.
 * That's enough for now, I think. A lot of work has clearly gone into this already but I'd be interested in seeing your replies to these points. BencherliteTalk 13:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, I have responded above, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC).

Continuing from above.
 * I really don't like "The Most Noble John George Edward Henry Douglas Sutherland Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll KT GCMG" as opposed to John Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll, and similarly for all the honorific titles and post-nominal letters. It's not the Wikipedia way to refer to someone, outside their own article, with a fistful of titles and honours either side of their name.
 * Re the Duke of Teck etc. I'm not asking you to say that he got the GCVO because he was a member of the royal family.  I'm asking for something like this:

(Incidentally, what's the advantage of  instead of sortname?) You can combine the office and occasion fields because all of the "occasions" were awarded on the same date, so can be found that way (NB even at the moment it's not sortable by occasion, so you don't lose anything by combining the information it contains with another column).
 * If you link Austria-Hungary once, you have to link it every time it appears as this is a sortable table.
 * To get rid of "King" from the article title, the page would have to be moved. Perhaps that's something to decide/do after closure of the FLC as moving pages mid-FLC risks confusing bots and people! BencherliteTalk 17:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments. I have now gone through the whole list and removed every honorific (e.g. his majesty, most noble), post-nominal and all middle names where it is clear that it is a middle name (in some foreign cases, it is not always clear). I have retained military ranks and the prefixes "Sir", "Count", "Prince" and "Lord", which I believe is policy, but everything else has been trimmed back as requested. I can remove those too, but I don't think they are superfluous. I have removed links in the countries column. I have amended the Duke of Teck and his two brothers who received the award, as you requested; if there are any others, let me know (I can't think of any, but will check over once more). I have also merged the office and occasion columns as requested. Lastly, I don't have a particular reason for the sorting preference - I think it was just the first way I learnt to apply sorting to tables—I wasn't aware that it was functionally any different. Again, let me know if this is all correct now. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC).


 * Support some of your phrases in the notes end with a full-stop, others don't. Best to make it consistent. Perhaps the same is true of your references (or it might be that my glasses need cleaning again). Apart from that, we're now into "I might have done it differently" territory in some respects, which isn't a reason to oppose. For future lists, you can save yourself some typing by using sortname (which even handles names you don't want to link). Well done. BencherliteTalk 21:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I will look over the full-stops and learn to use the sortname template. Thank you for your comments and your support, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC).


 * What sets the criteria for which people have notes and which don't? I'd keep the list self-contained, meaning that there should be short biographic information for all of them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The information in each note is taken from the original gazette and consists of the occasion given for the appointment, and the person's office. For most knights, this effectively gives the reason for the appointment. In some of the older sources, appointments are seldom given, and so the notes column is left empty unless I can find the information elsewhere. Bencherlite pointed out that royals received orders for being royal, and so I ought to explain their relationship to the King. Otherwise, I never intended to add biographical information in itself because I felt it was out of the scope of the list, and also because it might create inconsistency: you can see how many of the foreigners lack articles on the English Wikipedia (a shame, I know) and this is telling about the English-language sources available online. I wouldn't know where to find reliable information about members of the Austrian Royal Household, Portuguese nobility, or the Japanese diplomatic service, and so some may lack information. I have just finished my term at University, so I am free to spend some time over this, however. If you could be a bit more specific about what and how much information to include, I can have a look at it. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC).
 * In most cases we have articles on the individuals (a blessing, really) so a single sentence should be easy for those. "King of Siam", etc. Occasion of the appointment may be available, though I wouldn't be sure of that. Basically, it's fine and dandy to have a list of people made knights grand cross, but we should standardize whether we give the reason why or not. Otherwise it will be confusing for individuals not familiar with the subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I've added info to the empty notes columns. There are still four or five for whom I can find very little, but they are titled, so perhaps that will suffice to explain their importance? Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC).
 * That works better. Guess it's enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * letters patent - why the lower case?
 * Done


 * Of those 97, six were members of his own family, three were Indian princes, one was an Archbishop, 31 were - Per WP:NUMNOTES, comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in numerals.
 * Done


 * Link The London Gazette on first mention. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done
 * I've corrected each of these. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Support on prose. Good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your support, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC).


 * - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.