Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 6

Project name
Despite the rename from WikiProject Biography/Royalty → WikiProject Royalty almost two years ago, the main page still styles itself as the "Royalty and Nobility Work Group" of WikiProject Biography. Would there be any objection to moving it back as a subpage of WikiProject Biography?

Either way, can this project/work group be renamed "Royalty and Nobility" to more accurately reflect its scope? PC78 (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Princes and Princesses of Bourbon-Two Sicilies renamed Princes and Princesses of the Two Sicilies
It has come to my attention that all the articles for the Princes and Princesses of Bourbon-Two Sicilies were unilaterally redirected to articles where they are titled Princes and Princesses of the Two Sicilies without there being any discussion or consensus reached with other editors? How does one rectify the results of this unilateral decision? Can these moves be undone until a consensus is reached? --Caponer (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs
Howdy folks. We need more imput at that Template's discussion. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazil, etc
The work of a new editor called Fernandoe is rubbing up Lecen, an experienced and scrupulous editor, in the wrong way. Fernandoe's most informative edit summary: ''The emperor Dom peter II have last names. He is son of Maria Leopoldina de Habsburgo-Lorena and Dom Pedro I de Bragança e Bourbon.'' Lecen believes that this is wrong, as are other, related edits by Fernandoe. I don't know, but perhaps you people here do know. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tagging
Following recent checks of some categories - it looks like that quite a few categories are in the scope of this project and not tagged - I am assuming that biography/royalty means more or less any royalty in whatever form - any clarification is appreciated SatuSuro 04:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of nat'l flags in listing of nobility on Olympics page
Someone here will no doubt know the proper protocol so please see Talk:2010_Winter_Olympics_opening_ceremony and note my objection to the use of flags at all in this section; but if flags are used, it doesn't seem appropriate at least in some cases to use national flags (as in the case of Princess Anne, who was attending as a private citizen and not in a royal-delegation capacity).Skookum1 (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is the King Leopold II (Butcher of Congo)?
The page, Butcher has a link to the Butcher of Congo. But when clicking the link, it goes to Leopold_II. Looking on the page Leopold II of Belgium, there is no mention of "Butcher of Congo". But on the page, Leon Rom, it states it there. Also on page, List_of_nicknames_of_European_royalty_and_nobility:_L, there is has a external link pointing to Leopold II of Belgium as the Butcher of Congo. Thanks, 160.109.98.44 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi; I'd appreciate if the members of this project could give your opinion here. Thanks! --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC
prefixes in article title of Eastern Orthodox officials ==

An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Earl of Northesk
David Carnegie, 14th Earl of Northesk, an excepted hereditary peer under the House of Lords Act 1999 has died. According to Earl of Northesk, the heir presumptive was Patrick Carnegy, a distant cousin through the 2nd Earl. I have added him to the list at the latter article as the 15 Earl, but there is no proof at this point. Aside from needing to verify the current holder, we need to consider beginning an article. So far, I have discovered that there is a Patrick Carnegie who is an expert on Richard Wagner, and lived with his "partner", the soprano Jill Gomez as of May 2007. -Rrius (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did you read that he had died? He was rather young and I can't find that information. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Today's Lords Hansard. -Rrius (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the saved book template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class biography (royalty) articles should have covers.

If you need help with the saved book template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Books, and WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. Earwig Bot ( owner &bull;  talk ) 00:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

UK Herald
Peter Gwynn-Jones retired as Garter Principal King of Arms and was succeeded by Thomas Woodcock (officer of arms) on 1 April. Woodcock had been Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, and was replaced in that role by Patric Laurence Dickinson on 6 April. Dickinson had been Richmond Herald. I have updated as much as I can. I am saying all this because I do not know all affected articles and because I don't know enough to understand whether Dickinson is still Richmond Herald or what has happened with that position. Perhaps Monday's Gazette will provide some insight. -Rrius (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi ‎
Reza Pahlavi‎ is the heir to the Shah of Iran. Pahlavi has apparently begun editing both his own biography and that of his wife. Aside from general NPOV and BLP issues, I believe he is asserting that they are reigning monarchs, or perhaps he means that he is the reigning crown prince. The bios might need someone who is familiar with editing biographies of former imperial families.  Will Beback   talk    04:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Bavarian throne
I saw this edit, and there is nothing I can do because neither for the original information nor for the new information any sources are offered. Some obvious problems: Since I have in the past observed similar problems with the poor sourcing and maintenance of such list articles in the scope of this project, and since this facilitates the work of hoaxters and fraudsters, I will also notify WP:BLP/N. Hans Adler 08:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is about a fiction. The Bavarian throne was abolished in 1918, and there appears to be no chance that it will ever be revived.
 * The article is a single huge BLP violation. It lists 21 living people and makes an unsourced claim about each person on the list.


 * As Bali ultimate said above in : Template:Former monarchic orders of succession "appears to be a navigational aid to entirely unsourced, unverifiable claims." Hans Adler 08:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The law of succession used in these states could be sourced. If you are looking for a source to say "Prince blah-blah" is number 3 or 10 in line that will be difficult as people, renounce their rights, die are born etc so books and news articles will be out of date as soon as they are published. In the Bulgarian article I have cited the Petit Gotha which was published in 2002 and no one has been born or died since so no problem. Certain other LOS are given in Petit Gotha but there is a problem as princes have been born recently or died so the LOS has obviously changed. I have another book where the Russian LOS to Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia is given but it was published in 1994 and about half of the princes are now dead. Generally the articles are OR to an extent as the succession law is known, the princes who belong to the family and are in the LOS are known, and people put these two facts together to create the lists. - dwc lr (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your sourcing of two of the articles.
 * To the extent that these fictional lines of succession – I am talking about the extrapolations past abolishment – are actually notable, there would certainly be reliable sources at least for the top positions; and I can't see how the the number 10 in line for an abolished throne could be relevant anyway. But I can't help feeling that pretending that these things still exist must be purely internal family entertainment in most cases and therefore doesn't really have a place here. Hans Adler 19:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * These are obviously just LOS to the headship of the former reigning house though they are obviously titled differently and say “to the throne” for some reason. I don’t know how relevant they really are, most are probably not that important. There are some that I believe are of interest and relevant and those are the ones where a dispute has or most likely will arise over who is the rightful head of the House like in France, Brazil, Georgia, Russia, Romania, Saxony, Italy or the Two Scillies. Generally these articles can be well sourced as there is a lot of information on them. And compared to the others these indeed are reasonably well sourced. - dwc lr (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Georgian throne
Is there anyone here with the ability and patience to sort out the madness that is going on at the talk page of this article? Hans Adler 09:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hans -- as you may be aware, there hasn't been a Georgian King in 200 years. Why should there be an article on the theoretical and ignored in the wider world, line of "succession" to a non-existent thing?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No I wasn't aware. I recently tagged a bunch of these articles for lack of sources, which is how this got on my watchlist. It looks as if this one could be a very good candidate for deletion. Hans Adler 16:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that in the thread above, dwc lr mentions this case in a list of lines of succession that should be easy to source because they are contentious. But I really wonder if it's worth the trouble. Somehow I doubt that these lists are the right way to organise articles about such topics. Hans Adler 16:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from the genealogy obsessives and the "royalty" worshipers, there is no broad coverage of these issues and why should there be? Most of the "research" is driven by people obsessed with proving their "royal" position. That is, people who have vested interests in research outcomes. And in many cases, as this one, the thrones have been long abolished, there's no royalist constituency of any size in Georgia arguing to bring them back, they therefore have no impact on local political life, most of the "title holders" are not notable in their own right (some are of course, but that's generally because of things they've done or accomplished, not a matter of birth), etc... It's inappropriate for a general encyclopedia. Just another set of walled gardens. I know I'm screaming into the wind on this, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you are not, as far as I am concerned. I am merely being a bit more patient with these nonsense pages right now because I can't be bothered at the moment to check which of them might be legitimate (typically because there is a chance of a return to monarchy) and which are clearly not. Hans Adler 17:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am strongly opposed to articles whose only purpose is original research related to geneaology. However, Georgia is not a good example for saying that there's no royalist constituency of any size arguing to bring them back. In fact, the highest-ranking religious leaders and politicians have expressed their support for the restoration of monarchy in Georgia. See Monarchism in Georgia. Anyway, all unsourced (and especially unsourceable) information from the Line of succession to the Georgian throne article should be removed. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

HIH Prince Konstantin V Mustafaev
The article HIH Prince Konstantin V Mustafaev has been tagged for speedy deletion. The person claims to be part of the House of Osman of the Ottoman Empire. I cannot immediately verify the claims. I would be grateful if you could take a look at the article and make any changes that seem appropriate. I have also posted this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Those people do not claim to be Royalty - information which providing is translated from Turkish into Russian, Russian into English ( some of work still in work)

(Arch-TRHO 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Royal House of Osman (talk • contribs) — The Royal House of Osman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * For obvious reasons, this account has since been blocked. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons
The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at WikiProject Biography/Royalty/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 83 articles to be referenced, a 1.2% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

On-going madness at Line of succession to the Georgian throne
What can we do about this article? Is there anyone neutral and qualified willing to deal with this? Or can we just delete this article as an unmaintainable POV-pushing forum? Hans Adler 10:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What changes are needed? As Surtsicna noted in her reply to you a few posts above this on 22 April 2010, the Georgian royal succession is current, reported upon, and notable: the country has been in turmoil, both internally and internationally, since obtaining its freedom from the Soviet Union. In response to the competition among its various parties, the highly respected and politically influential head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Ilia II, called for the restoration of constitutional monarchy in 2007 as a way of breaking through the debilitating logjam of the nation's politics. His suggestion received broad coverage, prompted interested responses from leaders of most of Georgia's political parties, encouraged monarchists to organize and come forward, and ultimately resulted in an attempt to identify a single candidate to the throne by prompting two rival branches of the old dynasty to unite by marriage. Although it's true there is not a lot of comment on this phenomenon in Western media, there is enough to make it notable and to source the claims made. The edit-wars on the related articles are indicative of the fact that monarchists have become visible, political activists in Georgia. No one claims that restoration is Georgia's main political movement -- but that isn't a criterion for coverage in Wikipedia. While I think that the cites given suffice to establish the notability and inclusion of deposed dynasties' historical claims, I join Surtsicna in agreeing that more documented sources are desirable, and I am actively in search of them and of time to post what I've found. The relatively few sources, and the edit-wars and lengthy disputes on discussion pages, largely reflect the paucity of online English-language sources, and the fact that the interested Georgian parties have difficulty grasping English WP's rules and finding sources for their contentions that are verifiable by other English WP editors. As for the specifics of the dispute, I thought I had navigated throug it at Sorting out NPOV, including identifying sockpuppets (though new ones keep emerging) on the article's talk page. While you and Bali ultimate have made it clear that you do not share or approve interest in modern monarchy, royalty or we "genealogy obsessives and 'royalty' worshipers", I know you both realize that is not grounds ipso facto for disrespecting such interest among others on Wikipedia, nor for being more demanding in article editing than on other topics. Rather than dismissing pretenders and their dynasties as a walled garden on Wikipedia, why can it not be seen simply as a small but open garden in which most readers and editors prefer not to stroll, but where there are gardeners vigilantly pruning and weeding for the enjoyment of those who care and those who find it edifying when they happen to come upon it? FactStraight (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if we want to have such articles, someone must defend them against hoaxing and serious POV problems such as the pushing of dubious claims. And given the almost complete lack of sources in any of the major languages (I am generally happy using sources in English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch and the Scandinavian languages, but all of them seem to be pretty useless in this case) it appears that for this article we need someone who is an expert, has access to unusual sources, and/or can read the relevant languages such as Georgian. If such a user materialises and takes responsibility for this article I have no problem with its further existence. My second sentence above was not rhetorical.
 * This article seems to be mostly an original synthesis of rare offline sources and dubious-looking websites. I don't feel at all comfortable reverting to the current version when someone changes it, even when they do so without reasonable explanation. Hans Adler 20:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Earl of Stair
As I understand it, the Earldom of Stair is in the peerage of Scotland, but its subsidiary title, the Barony of Oxenfoord, is in the peerage of the UK. It is further my understanding that until the Peerage Act 1963 came into effect, the latter title is the only one that would have given an automatic right to a seat in the House of Lords. After the 1963 Act took effect, though, it would seem to me that the Earldom would have granted the right as well. Thus, the current Earl of Stair, who sits as an excepted hereditary peer, should be able to sit by virtue of the Earldom of Stair. However, his UK peerage is included after his name in parenthesis as is done with Irish peers who are excepted peers sitting by virtue of a UK peerage. Can someone help me figure out what is going on? -Rrius (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Page move of interest
At Talk:Catherine Ashton, there is discussion potentially of interest to members of this WikiProject. -Rrius (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Self sourced House
Has anyone heard of the House of Lichtenberg? The creator and editor cites the webpage he maintains as a source, which happens to be the sole source. 08:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.117.126 (talk)

James I of England
Input is needed at that article, concerning a rumor about the King. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Photos and portraits from other wikis - someone good uploading pictures?
As I'm doing genealogical reseach on royal houses in Europe, it came under my attention the fact that many pictures of royals aren't displayed in the English wiki, but looking at other languages, there are one or more pictures portraying that person... Some examples?
 * Alexander Karageorgievich, Prince of Yugoslavia: there are pictures here and here (the same applies with his two brothers)
 * Francesco di Paola di Borbone, Comte de Trapani: one picture here
 * Stéphanie Marie Elizabeth Grimaldi, Princess of Monaco: one picture here
 * Astrid Josephine-Charlotte de Belgique, Princesse de Belgique: one picture here
 * Don Fulco Ruffo di Calabria, Prince Ruffo di Calabria: one picture here
 * Lorenz Otto Erzherzog von Österreich: one picture here
 * Dona Margarita Gómez-Acebo y Cejuala: one picture here
 * Joachim Holger Valdemar Christian, Prince of Denmark: several pictures here
 * Nikolai William Alexander Frederik, Prince of Denmark: one picture here
 * Isabella Henrietta Ingrid Margrethe, Princess of Denmark: one picture here
 * Christian Valdemar Henri John, Prince of Denmark: one picture here

I tried to put those pictures in Commons so as to be able to put them in the English article, but wasn't able to, since they are usual in incomprehensible languages (for me of course), plus I know nothing on copyright and the such.

Couldn't it be created a section where to post those pictures so that people who are more competent than me could add them into Commons? Then I would add them myself in the corresponding English articles. Do you think it could be possible? Daphoenyx (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why Swedish symbol in template?
Why does a little shield with a Swedish flag symbol appear in the template of this group on many talk pages of royalty who are not Swedish (such as Albert II of Monaco)? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Baasha ben Ruhubi


The article Baasha ben Ruhubi has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * a search for references on "Baasha ben Ruhubi" found only mirrors and items that appear to come from this article. There are no G book hits other then a single mirror of Wikipedia. Fails WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry of Felipe, Prince of Asturias
I recently removed the unreferenced BLP tag from the above article, and relaced with a simple unref tag, as in my opinion the BLP is the article Felipe, Prince of Asturias. Would appreciate other opinions as to whether should be classed as User:Mr.Z-bot and User:Joshua Scott obviously have other opinions having re-added the BLP unref tag. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this project still active? No response in over ten days?  Jezhotwells (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously not active. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Serbian monarchs
There is a dispute at Talk:List of Serbian monarchs about how this list should be arranged (like other lists of European monarchs or differently). I'd appreciate your comments. Surtsicna (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahnentafels; Request for Comment on an open and shut case
The template to open ahnentafels (ancestry tables) (Template:ahnentafel top) was changed last May to open all such tables on first viewing with an option to "Hide". The previous situation had been the reverse (a title bar with a link to "Show").

(1) Editors can now change the first appearance of an ahnentafel by adding "|collapsed=yes" to "ahnentafel top" (see Template:Ahnentafel top/doc.)

(2) I'm now taking a survey to see how many editors (or the editors of how many articles) would prefer to keep this situation, and how many would prefer to change the default so that editors who wanted to display an ahnentafel on first sight would have to add "collapsed=no".

Since over 2,500 articles (some of which would clearly benefit from one option and some from the other) use this template, a large sample of preferences would be very helpful in discussing which default to use.

Please indicate your preferences at Template talk:Ahnentafel top/Requested Comments 1. And let other editors know about this poll. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

New lists
I have reconstructed the following lists: The new lists are quite a bit more substantial in terms of content and information. Any feedback or suggestions for further improvement would be greatly appreciated.  Night w   05:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * List of current sovereign monarchs (previously List of current monarchs)
 * List of current constituent monarchs (previously List of subnational monarchs)
 * List of current pretenders (previously Modern pretenders)

Unreferenced BLPs
Throughout 2010, many Wikipedia editors have worked hard to halve the number of unreferenced biographical articles (UBLPs) from more than 52,000 in January to under 26,000 now. The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons has assisted in many ways, including helping to setup a bot, which runs daily, compiling lists of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at WikiProject Biography/Royalty/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 107 articles to be referenced. A list of all projects that are being tracked can be found at WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. We've done a lot, but we still have a long way to go. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

FAR notice Claudius
nominated Claudius for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Stuart descendants
Hi, dropping by to invite help to fill some gaps in User:Tamfang/Stuart. In particular, I'd like links or details for the heir-general of each child of Louis Otto, Prince of Salm. —Tamfang (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is normally a pretty good site. There's lots of royal genealogy sites on the internet, though.  Using that site, I find that Dorothea's heir-general is Carl Philipp, Prince of Salm-Salm, Elisabeth's is Don Carlo Alessandro della Torre e Tasso, 3°Duca di Castel Duino and Christine's is likewise Carl Philipp, Prince of Salm-Salm, as Christine's second daughter, the only one of her children to have issue, married Dorothea's third son, the oldest of Dorothea's sons to have issue.  Which is to say, what you have now seems to be right.  You have an error in the Prussian line - Frederick the Great had no children; the later Prussian kings were descended from Sophia Dorothea's younger son August Wilhelm, who was not born until 1722. john k (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, Felicitas of Pruissia's representative is, so far as I can gather, her second son, Hubertus von der Osten (b. 1964). See .  Her eldest son, Dinnies, died without issue over twenty years ago. john k (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! —Tamfang (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Biography (royalty) articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Biography (royalty) articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Franco (King)


The article Franco (King) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A search for references on (Cimmerian Bosporus, Franco & Genger; and variations) did not find support for this article as written fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry section for royals that were born commoners
Please see Talk:Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark. I do not think that we should have ancestry charts if the person's ancestors were not notable because Wikipedia is not a geneaology database. All information should be there for a purpose; I doubt anyone would come to Wikipedia looking for the name of Mary's father's mother's mother's father and say: "Oh! It's Betty Smith! Now I know something useful." But, there are users who disagree, saying that the ancestry section is of "historical interest for all royals regardless of the notability, or otherwise, of the ancestors". What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes for consorts
If the subject was a queen consort or an empress consort, I can tolerate them. But users tend to add trivial succession boxes for titles such as "Countess consort of X", "Duchess consort of Y", etc. I think these serve no purpose at all because the "office" of countess/duchess is almost never significant enough. They also make those insignificant titles held by marriage look as important as those held by the subject in her own right. Therefore, I propose removing them. Surtsicna (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Article titles (and subject styles)
Hi! Need some expert help here (I know virtually nothing about royalty and nobility titles and styles). . It looks odd to me, but as I say I know nothing. Executive summary: has been making a lot of changes to the styles used by royals and nobles, and has done a fair bit of page-moving as well. I don't know whether this is appropriate or not: I looked at a few (e.g. changing Prince Andrew, Duke of York's infobox name from "Prince Andrew" to "") and reverted; beyond that I'm well outside my comfort zone (I'm not even convinced I was necessarily correct with Prince Andrew...) Help! TFOWR 15:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Prince Andrew" is technically correct, but, imo, unnecessarily pedantic. Basically, in Britain, the children of a monarch are styled "The Prince X" while male-line grandchildren are merely "Prince X," with no "The."  But the "The" is really not necessary for the purposes of an encyclopedia article.  The page moves really should all be reverted until the user decides to use the talk pages and explain why we should move the pages to his desired locations. john k (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a quick list of this user's moves. I'm also concerned; hardly any edits, and almost all move or move-related. Probably a sock. -- Ja Ga  talk 03:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Name
Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse was King of Finland but no one ever changed the name beacuse the name says Prince. If anyone could take a look. Spongie555 (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hirohito, rename, again
FYI, Hirohito has again been nominated for renaming, see Talk:Hirohito. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for main list
I have submitted List of current sovereign monarchs for peer review. The review discussion is located here. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks,  Night w   10:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vasudeva of Kabul


The article Vasudeva of Kabul has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A search for references ("Vasudeva of Kabul") found no published (gBooks) support for this article (LLC is a wikimirror)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

FAC nomination for main list
I've nominated List of current sovereign monarchs for featured list. Please contribute to the nomination discussion. Regards,  Night w   16:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Emperors & Empresses of Japan bio articles
It appears that all those bio articles have Emperor  & Empress  as their title, except for those of Hirohito & Akihito. Why is this? GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

British royal labels
User:Stephen2nd/Royal Labels of the United Kingdom is about ready to move into article space. —Tamfang (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Now Royal Labels of the United Kingdom. (I reckon it ought to be Cadency labels of the British Royal Family, but as usual I'm in a minority.) —Tamfang (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies is a Featured article nominee
The article about Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies, a 19th century Italian princess and wife of Pedro II, the second Brazilian emperor is now a Featured article nominee. Comments, criticisms, supports or opposes are welcome. See: Featured article candidates/Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies/archive1. --Lecen (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC Notification
There is currently an RfC pertaining to British Royalty open here. NickCT (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Date of death Prince Paul of Wuttemberg
Also posted on Talk:Prince Paul of Württemberg

Need clarification on 1852 as the date of death, although I have seen that date elsewhere on the internet. Please see Journals of Prince Paul of Wuternburg, where it mentions a couple of paragraphs from the end the dates of his visits to the United States. The fourth trip was 1849-1856 and the last trip was 1857-1858. Also, please reference Carl Iwonski where it mentions in the second paragraph that the prince made a visit to New Braunfels, Texas in 1855. Perhaps there needs to be a correction on the date of death??? Maile66 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael of Zahumlje
The article Michael of Zahumlje has attained good article status. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

RMs notifications?
I see there's Rfc, GA, FA, AfD notifications. But there's no RM notifications. GoodDay (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is that? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * RMs are move requests for article titles. GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bit of a puzzle why you are raising it here. What are you suggesting? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That such 'requested moves' discussion be noted here. Just like the Rfc, FA, Afd etc. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be glib, GoodDay. If there is a particular RM that you feel should have been mentioned here, do the honours. If there was a similar RM that has been and gone, whine about it in your final will.  Night w   13:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I observed that there's no RM notifications. If that troubles you? tough. The ..whine about it in your final will response, was pathetic. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On a more constructive note, I don't think this project is subscribed to WP:Article_alerts? If you were to do that, you could transclude the notifications into the top of the Project page and/or watchlist the transcluded page and get notified of all that kind of stuff automagically. It would also mean that this page doesn't get cluttered with notifications. I've not looked closely, I'd guess you'd probably have to do a cat-based subscription since this is more of a taskforce of WPBIO than a true project. Le Deluge (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I reckon that's above my head. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Female monarchs
What's best to use in female monarch articles? queen regnant or reigning queen? GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither should be used when such use conflicts with policy, guidelines, or good prose. Statements like "Queen Salote of Tonga was the reigning queen of Tonga from 1918 to 1965." is unnecessarily repetitive, and can be phrased, without any loss of meaning, as "Queen Salote of Tonga reigned from 1918 to 1965." DrKiernan (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't conflict at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Victoria of the United Kingdom, Margaret II of Denmark & Beatrix of the Netherlands for example. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note, we've got the article Queen regnant, not Reigning queen. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the correct term, yes, and people who aren't interested in learning basic terminology like that, to negotiate who's who and what's what in royalty, aren't likely to be particularly interested in the subject matter at all anyway. We have a linguistic problem here since the position can be either of two (or three, if including dowagers) when the title is used without specifics. I think good policy is to face the problem and deal with it, not pretend as if we don't have it or get (feminist?) ideology involved which isn't going to solve the problem for the regular reader. A new term would be great for female sovereigns / royal heads of state, but let's work with what we have till then, please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In agreement. It's not our fault that history has a male-dominant past, wich has caused Queen to have multiple meanings (monarch, consort, dowager). GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Queen Salote of Tonga reigned from 1918 to 1965." is perfectly understandable as an expression that Salote reigned rather than was married or widowed. DrKiernan (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Salote Tupou III, was Queen regnant of Tonga from 1918 to 1965", would read much clearer. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Better still without the comma. —Tamfang (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt it, since you've even admitted yourself that you'd never heard of the term . DrKiernan (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the 'pedia, I discovered the 'term' & learned about it. I hope future readers will have that same chance. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay does make a good case justifying the usage of Queen regnant as it removes any ambiguity over Queen consort, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues here: one is that GoodDay is inserting the term "queen regnant" into articles where the term is inappropriate on grounds of policy. For example, it is not wikipedia's job to decide between alternative interpretations of history. If historians say Margaret I of Denmark is not a queen regnant, then GoodDay is pushing his personal POV by insisting on using the term in the article. The article should present a balanced view that takes account of all opinions. It is not accepted that Margaret was queen in her own right. GoodDay has deliberately excluded the interpretation that she was a queen because she married a king, and that she was a ruler not because she was queen in her own right but because she was a regent acting for her son Olav first and then (after he died) for her great-nephew Eric. The argument that she was a queen consort acting as a regent and not a queen regnant is being ignored.

Secondly, there is the issue of prose. I see no point on insisting on the obscure when the commonplace will suffice. DrKiernan (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've only inserted queen regnant at Margaret I of Denmark, which was a mistake, as historians don't see her a such & Salote Tupou III of Tonga, which was a correct addition. Again DrK, why are you letting your personal preference block a chance to educate readers. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Explained above. I don't feel the need to constantly repeat myself. DrKiernan (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering current female monarch articles, you don't seem to be protesting it usage at Margaret II of Denmark and Beatrix of the Netherlands, why? GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing discussion here and at Talk:Elizabeth II. Until discussion is resolved it is inappropriate to edit the articles when it is known that the edit is contentious, and it is inappropriate to start multiple parallel discussions. These are our behavioral norms, and I support them. DrKiernan (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck to ya'll, concerning that topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to your 4 July 2010 edit. You're oppsoing Queen regnant because you fear it's hurting the article's chances of FA status. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

DrKiernan seems to be focusing on this as though it were merely a matter of good prose; don't unnecessarily repeat "queen" twice in one sentence. That's good advice. However, it doesn't address the actual question here: If there isn't another use of the word "queen" in the opening sentence of an article on a reigning female monarch (such as at Beatrix of the Netherlands and Elizabeth II) or formerly reigning female monarch (such as at Salote Tupou III of Tonga and Liliuokalani), do we use the term "queen regnant" or "reigning queen" to describe that individual? The only argument I've heard against the former is that it isn't a commonly used descriptor and thus won't be recognised by readers. I'm not convinced by that reasoning. If someone comprehends "reigning", they'll likely understand "regnant". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Governor-General of Australia
There's a dispute over who's Australia's Head of state: The Queen of Australia or the Governor General. We need more input. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Saudi/Jordanian monarchy move request
Hello, I have started a move request for several Saudi and Jordanian monarchs without regnal numerals. The move would shift these articles from the "[Name] of [Country]" formulation to "[Name], King of [Country]" (like the recently moved John, King of England and so on). If you have any view on the matter, the centralised discussion is located here. Thanks, The Celestial City (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil is now a Featured article nominee
Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil's FAC nomination os now open. The link is here. --Lecen (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)