Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 7

We should be avoiding 're-directs' & 'pipe-links' that promote the gaelic version of Malcolm III of Scotland & Malcolm IV of Scotland, as those linked articles are currently in 'english' version. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBROKEN. In other words don't pipe links that aren't piped if they change nothing visually on the page as is the case in these ones you were edit warring over. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Those linked articles are in 'english', we should use 'pipe-links' that respect this. We should have'em shown as [Malcolm III of Scotland|Malcolm III] & [Malcolm IV of Scotland|Malcolm IV]. This is done for the surrounding Scottish monarch articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that is completely counter to the point of what redirects are for. Personally I don't care how they are listed on the page. I am just pointing out there are guidelines that actually say not to do what you did. -DJSasso (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Baloney, I did nothing wrong. PS: When did you become so interested in Scottish monarch articles? GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I linked you to the guideline above, if you want to keep ignoring guidelines that is your choice. I have little interest in the content of the articles. But I do have interest in editors that are causing disruption just for the sake of disruption. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you go and seek such editors, 'cuz I'm not one of'em. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a complete misinterpretation of the guideline in question. The guideline you are pointing to just says not to change links for the purpose of avoiding redirects. That is not what GoodDay was doing. He was changing links because he thinks the article in question should say "Malcolm III" instead of "Mael Coluim III". The link is incidental. Hmm, no, actually, that's not what GoodDay is doing. GoodDay is specifically violating the rule you point to. Personally, it seems pretty obvious to me that the articles in question should refer to "Malcolm III" and "Malcolm IV" in the text itself, whatever the links pipe to or don't. john k (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, John K. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

See above, I modified my position. I agree that we should not be using the Scottish names, but I'm not sure why you're focusing on the piping, when the real problem is that we are calling them "Mael Coluim" in the article text. john k (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused. I was attempting to make this kinda edit [Malcolm III of Scotland|Malcolm III] & [Malcolm IV of Scotland|Malcolm IV] at that articles 'content' & 'infobox'. That's the names of the 2 linked-articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to find reliable sources to verify the contents of the article Ferdinand, Hereditary Prince of Leiningen and am coming up blank. Can anyone here help? Thanks J04n(talk page) 22:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You might try the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels. john k (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I userfied an article for this new editor a couple weeks ago. The user has made some improvements to it, but I know nothing about the topic and am unable to determine if it's suitable for the mainspace (it does still need some work with citations). If anyone has interest in this topic, please take a look at the article User:Italian-royalty/Nobility in Sicily. Thanks! P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Austrian nobility#Abolition of nobility in 1919, all title of nobility in Austria were abolished in 1919. Most people who used "von" as part of their name dropped it. We still refer to "Ludwig von Mises" because he presumably re-added the "von" after he left Austria in 1934 and it's how he's commonly known. He had also inherited the title Edler. What's the appropriate way of using the title in the biography? Should we use it as if the title had not been abolished? Or say he was a "former Edler"? It is a not a common part of his name.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Could anyone tell me how your project generally deals with translations in a "Royal styles" infobox like the one at Princess_Maria_Amélia_of_Brazil#Titles and honors? Do you list "Senhora" or "Ma'am" or both or neither? - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heir to the Ottoman dynasty, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Desirée of Schaumburg-Lippe. - dwc lr (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A new nominated article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark. - dwc lr (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Aristidis-Stavros of Greece and Denmark - dwc lr (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark - dwc lr (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A discussion at Talk:List of Irish queens and consorts has prompted me to open a deletion discussion for these types of articles, most of which are the work of User:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy. Contributions would be welcome. Opera hat (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion in progress at Talk:Tudor dynasty about moving Tudor dynasty to House of Tudor for those who wish to comment. OCNative (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Having trouble getting this article from unsourced to having at least one reliable source. Any assistance greatly appreciated. --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A discussion which could have wide ranging repercussions for how non reigning royals are titled is taking place at Talk:Archduke Karl of Austria#Requested move. The relevant naming guidelines for this article are WP:NCROY - dwc lr (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines need revamping. Those who weren't born royal, shouldn't have royal titles in their article name. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And that would create all sorts of problems as one would have to find reliable sources proving what peoples legal names are, that is likely almost impossible. What would you call Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece? For German royals you can assume that their legal names are their titles in their native form, but without proof that is original research which is not allowed. - dwc lr (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case we cannot have a naming guideline that imposes a revolutionary bias. In Wikipedia, a republic is a republic, not something that should really be a monarchy. Hans Adler 22:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A republic is a republic, naming conventions acknowledge this, that is why we don’t have articles called King Leka of the Albanians (Leka, Crown Prince of Albania), or Emperor Karl II of Austria, King Louis XX of France (Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou) and so on. - dwc lr (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Republics don't have Archdukes. Archduchies have Archdukes. Use of fictional titles is an indication of an anachronistic, pre-republican mindset. Hans Adler 22:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The French Republic has dukes and counts and the like, whose titles are all regulated by French law. john k (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Monarchies are all dependent on nations for their existence. If a nation decides not to be a monarchy anymore, from the moment that decision becomes legal in that nation the sitting royal family consists of Ex-King, Ex-Queen, Ex-Prince, Ex-Princess etc. Their descendants, born after that monarchy was abolished, are just regular citizens, with first names and a surname, like everybody else. Anything else is nice as a courtesy but has no bearing on reality. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

How many articles' subjects are notable only for being dynasts or nobles of ex-monarchies? To title such articles by their "plain" names would be like using Samuel Clemens. —Tamfang (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There are about a dozen men called "Archduke Karl of Austria" but for some reason the most recent pretender to that title is at that name despite the clear and unambiguous fact that it is not primary usage. It is more like placing John Adams (drummer) at John Adams because he's the most recent person who's been called that, or Charles Louis of Bourbon-Parma at "Charles II", because he is sometimes called that, even though there are plenty of other men called Charles II with a better claim to primary usage. DrKiernan (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it hard to add at the end (b 1961). - dwc lr (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it hard to move it to "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen"? DrKiernan (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

At any rate Karl Habsburg-Lothringen could refer to his grandfather. - dwc lr (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it hard to add at the end (b 1961)? DrKiernan (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Too late now I guess so yes, RM is well underway. - dwc lr (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In a discussion at the BLP noticeboard I put forward an argument that we should try to avoid the term 'pretender' as being misleading for general audiences. It is a term of art for those who study royalty, but can be seen as a BLP violation for living people, and as simply confusing if applied to lots of long-since dead people. The term 'pretender' is easily replaced by more precise terms to cover different kinds of cases.

Advice at the BLP noticeboard on the particular cases they are worried about will surely be appreciated, as will discussion here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I kind of agree. I mean we apply claims to these people who probably just wanted to live out their life in peace without any care of their descents from royalty.--71.80.200.5 (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Pretender" is a descriptive term and is not a term with any negative connotation, so I don't see how it could be a BLP violation. Which is not to say that we should refer to people as pretenders who are not actually pretenders. john k (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a bizarre battle going on along the following lines:

Contebragheonte (talk · contribs)/A curious reader (talk · contribs)

The Libro d'Oro is just an inoffical and incomplete list. On the other hand, the Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana provides a list of 48,000 families. Ersormarchese is a fake duke who hates the Annuario because he is not listed there.

Ersormarchese (talk · contribs)/Larastabata (talk · contribs)

The Libro d'Oro inofficially continues the Italian nobility register. The Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana was discontinued in 1905. An unrelated new publication has adopted the name and lists 20,000 families. Contebragheonte is a fake baron who hates the Libro because he is not listed there.

Maybe someone with a lot of patience and with the necessary background knowledge want to sort this out and make the necessary WP:SPI reports against both sides? Hans Adler 12:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there are quite a few socks on the scene. . I'm not sure quite what to make of any of it, but it needs sorting. Giacomo Returned 12:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wulfrida article states she was Queen of Wessex, as wife of Æthelred of Wessex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wulfrida states "No verifiable evidence that Wulfrida existed." I assume users from this project may wish to comment one way or another on this deletion. OCNative (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleased to inform you that I've created some "stub" on royal/imperial houses which are not present on en.wikipedia, neither in other wikipedia languages, only in it.wikipedia, are the following: Massimo Osmani Emanuele Gioeni Pilo Acuña Antiochia Valencia. Unfortunaly i'm unable to traslate it. Many thanks.Seics (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some concerns regarding that. Only two people have been significantly involved in the discussion. I believe your opinion will be very helpful to WT:Tambayan Philippines#Sulu Sultanate, Talk:Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram and User talk:RDAndrew. Naming convention seems to be the primary conflict. Moray An Par (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil is now a featured article nominee. Anyone willing to review the article and share thoughts is welcome. --Lecen (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Or their oppose. Per WP:CANVASS, such notifications should be phrased neutrally, not skewed towards an outcome. DrKiernan (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

First comment amended 22:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A Request for Comment has been made in Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies. See here. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

See my answer on that talk page. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Readers of this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Eveline Hańska#Requested move. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess we forgot to notify you guys here pls see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 royal tour of Canada.Moxy (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a dicussion of this man's status as King and his article title at Talk:Svein, King of Norway. If interested please join in the discussion.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Readers of this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou#Requested move: Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou --> Louis Alphonse de Bourbon. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Readers here may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:List of Dukes of Saxony#move. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Could anyone shed some light on the question I raised on this article's talk page? It concerns the daughters and who they married. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist) - I don't understand articles like this. I fear that they are absurd original research which then branches out to poison other articles with their absurdity. "He is recognised by those French monarchists who consider Philip V of Spain's renunciation of his rights of succession to the throne of France both on his succession and as part of the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht as null and void." Who? Who are these French monarchists? If they are not serious people, i.e. a handful of crackpots, then the entire article should be deleted.

There are virtually no sources for the article, and one has to wonder if there is any legitimacy at all to the huge list of people allegedly in line to succeed to the French throne.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't argue that the sources are on the page and I've no idea where the list comes from, but the Legitimist claim is a well-established one based on legal principles. Perhaps it's just the wording that needs amending, to describe it not as a group of people but rather as a perspective. Louis Alphonse is definitely the claimant, as seen in Opfell for example. Although, seriously theorising about the line of succession to a centuries-dead monarchy certainly qualifies as "crack-pot" to me. Nightw 06:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree that Louise Alphonse is a claimant. I think that's a heck of a thing for Opfell to say about a guy, that he claims to be the King of France. It strikes me as highly unlikely to be true. What we might say is that in an alternative history in which lots of things happened differently, he would be the person most likely to be the present King of France (despite having a fine head of hair, haha). My concern is that we talk about "legitimists" as if they actually exist, people who actually say that he's the King of France, and are (presumably) campaigning for this to be recognized in the law or whatever. As far as I can tell, that isn't true, and it is bordering on a BLP violation that we so often wrongly accuse people of being claimants to things they are claimings, or pretenders to thinks they aren't pretending to.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

He styles himself duc d'Anjou, asserting his senior descent from Philip V of Spain, and has assigned his twin sons the titles duc de Bourgogne and duc de Berry, recalling the sons of Louis XVI's father. I would have thought this shows he at least considers himself the rightful King of France, regardless of how many "legitimists" agree with him. Opera hat (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. None of these "pretenders" call themselves "kings". Rather, they usually claim that they are the rightful heir to a legacy which at max includes sovereignty, often includes the right to "regulate" dynastic marriages in their family, and always includes, at a minimum, public repudiation of the claims of rival pretenders. The fact is that where there are monarchists, there are factions within monarchist movements that include philosophies, followers, traditions, events and blogs. Exceptions may be to the many German ex-monarchies, except Bavaria, Prussia, and Saxony, who definitely assert claims as heirs to their "tradition". FactStraight (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There are crackpots in all walks of life. If they are notable, then sure we discuss them in our articles. But Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist) is an example of how we don't do it:

• "The Legitimist heir to the French throne is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, the senior member of the House of Bourbon." This is the first sentence of the article, and it does not set up the context in a way that makes it recognisable as fringe. Louis Alphonse "is" "[t]he Legitimist heir". This sounds as if it was an official function, moored in the French constitution. One needs to have knowledge about French culture and history that most Europeans have, but the average reader from Asia may not have, to understand from this sentence that the article is about the alternate universe of a tiny number of people who reject today's political system of France.
• There is excessive detail. If some religious sect believes that the world will end on 5 August next year and 100 people who they identify by their names will play an important role in that, then this sect would have to be extremely notable for us to list them all. What's different about Legitimist French monarchists that justifies going into excruciating detail about the details of their beliefs? Hans Adler 11:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would expect that Wikipedia considers it improperly POV to label political factions "fringe", per se. NPOV requires that within an article on a movement, fringe views not receive disproportionate coverage relative to more mainstream ones, but I'm unware of a rule that restricts the length of an article on a fringe movement relative to the length of articles on mainstream ones: on Wikipedia, such length has usually been a function of the interest of contributors in devoting time to the topic and, since Wikipedia is not paper, lots of long articles on fringe groups & movements are to be found here. It hasn't been that long since many of these same articles were being labelled "stub" with the injunction to expand. In response to other points made above:

• The excerpted first line of the article cited above omits the link to "Legitimist" actually included in the article, which is where usage of that term for a fringe movement is clarified. However, I can see how more clarity would be helpful, although not much more should be included in the lede, IMO.
• As for the use in that sentence of the term "Legitimist" to describe the duc d'Anjou as if that were an objective and prevalent usage rather than as freighted and obscure, again I'm inclined to agree with you. But see here for documentation to the contrary.
• I also agree that listing the entire French legitimist line of succession is excessive -- although I would disagree with Jimbo that the members of that list are not legitimately in that line or that the line is original research: unlike the much-disputed Line of succession to the British throne, eligibility for the French legitimist "crown" is defined in a much simpler way that makes it easier to verify.
• The rationale for listing Legitimist dynasts differs from that for explaining their beliefs. What distinguishes Legitimists from Orleanists from Bonapartists is a mixture of philosophy, politics and history. It is therefore complex. Why today's Carlists support either Carlos, Duke of Parma or his uncle, Prince Sixte-Henri of Bourbon-Parma as rightful king of Spain rather than Juan Carlos de Borbon, the actual king, is downright bewildering (see the Montejurra Incidents), yet I would argue that Carlism is notable and that encyclopedic accuracy justifies disentangling its issues to the extent there are WP contributors willing to objectively document its adherents' key differences. FactStraight (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr Adler's speech was followed by prolonged, sustained applause from the assembled multitude. Or me anyway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The proposed renaming being discussed at Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor#Requested move: To "Kaiser Wilhelm II" may be of interest to members of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Favonian (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

For a number of members of the Ottoman Imperial Family all listed under one proposal here. And also Greek Royals Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark, her brother Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark and his wife Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark. - dwc lr (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

On a related matter, I just signed this project up for article alerts. New requests (including AFDs) on articles in Category:Royalty work group articles will shortly be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Article alerts, which we can transclude here. Nightw 07:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Members of this project may have an interest in this thread: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Self-published royalty websites. The two websites are used as sources for many project articles.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposed renaming being discussed at Talk:Sigurd I of Norway#Requested move may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you guys give a look please? I rewrote it, since I had found some factual errors (anachronism of details mainly), but I feel some details would be better to go to other articles (several people were involved, as usual). Also I'd love to hear your opinion, if Princess Ikami and/or Prince Osabe (his empress later expelled and his first crown prince, see the article please) deserve their own articles, beyond notes on this article? --Aphaia (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There's an orphan article here which I've just PRODded. Anyone interested in Italian nobility might like to rescue it. At present it doesn't make much sense. PamD 14:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Readers of this page may be interested in the move request at Talk:House_of_Stewart#Move_the_article_back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of news today as David Cameron announced unanimous agreement among the 16 realms to change the rules of succession. Presumably Succession to the British throne needs updating.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Even more, the changes allows now heirs to the throne to marry Roman Catholics!! Does this imply that George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, who married Sylvana Tomaselli, a Roman Catholic, will be now again in line of succession to the British throne? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see. The law is supposedly not retrospective so the Princess Royal won't move up and so I don't think the Earl of St Andrews would necessarily come back into the line of succession. - dwc lr (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah that's a good point. Thanks for the quick response. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the settlement act don't come swifty. The announcement is one thing, but there's not much to it at the moment since no amendments have been proposed. Nightw 13:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposed changes should of course be discussed in the appropriate articles as proposed changes. We do not yet know that these reforms will actually pass - an agreement in principle among the prime ministers is quite different from successful passage in all the commonwealth realms. Canada seems like a particularly difficult proposition, since each province has to approve the change separately - I can't imagine Quebec would be too happy about passing a change that still excludes Catholics. john k (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's quite correct. I believe the Statute of Westminster says "dominion" governments have to approve changes in the royal succession, not individual provinces/states. For example, when Edward VIII wanted to mary Mrs. Simpson, Stanley Baldwin consulted only the national-level governments, not every Canadian province - as far as I know. Can anyone quote a reliable source that says otherwise?

Also - this BBC article talks about the application of the new law:

Changes would apply to children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge - even if they were born before a law change. It would mean, if the couple had a first-born daughter, she could become Queen. The change would not, however, apply to previous generations, so Princess Anne would not leapfrog her younger brothers Andrew and Edward to become fourth in line to the throne.

What the actual legislation will say once passed and approved remains to be seen, of course. Textorus (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What the Statute of Westminster says about dominion governments is superseded in Canada by the Constitution Act 1982, which subsumed a lot of previous legislation, including royal succession. Because succession is embedded in our constitution, the provinces must indeed each ratify the changes--though these ones should be relatively no-brainer. → ROUX ₪ 19:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Which means all ten provinces will decide how much of their wish list to tack on this bill, since it is only a minor inconvenience if it fails. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that article should be merged into Ferdinand of Romania. -- GoodDay (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do so. Most royal articles have a list of the royal's children, inwhich this would fit nicely; the permastub on this unfortunate infant only exists to avoad a red link in the infobox. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm just here to advise of a standardised succession table I've recently created. See {{Succession table monarch}} for more info. Hope it comes in handy. ClaretAsh 13:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, looks great! One issue though: if an unused parameter (like notes) is left blank it doesn't create a cell, which looks slightly odd. Is it possible to correct it so blank cells are created? Nightw 15:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I don't understand what you mean, though. I tested it here and blank cells do seem to be created. I checked the template code and it seems to force a cell creation, dependent, of course, on the name parameter being used. However, I note I didn't set a default value for any of the parameters. If you're referring to the fact that empty cells won't highlight when highlighting a table, then it'd be due to the lack of a default value. In that case, I don't know what default value would be appropriate. Could you tell me in which way it looks slightly odd? I have a coupe ideas of what else it could be but need more detail. Thank you again for the feedback. ClaretAsh 00:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The borders of the blank cell come up thinner than the others, but if you're not seeing it then I think it could just be the browser I'm using. Nightw 12:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I know what's happening now. It's to do with how I created borders for both the table as well as each cell. I ignored it at the time as it didn't seem to make any difference on my browser. I'll fiddle with it, though, and see if I can adjust it. Thanks. ClaretAsh 22:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm clueless and have asked for assistance here. ClaretAsh 06:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've requested that this article be merged into Edward VII. Prince Alexander lived for only 1-day. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement on the talk page (for a different merger), but the article's still there. Is there some other problem? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I've done it. DrKiernan (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I nominated Princess Alexandra of Greece for deletion. There have been several redirect !votes and one weak keep, all of which don't make much sense to me. An admin who appears to see this similarly has just relisted the AfD for a second time. Hans Adler 08:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There is debate at Talk:Miguel, Crown Prince of Portugal about the reliability of sources, etc.

If any members of this project have knowledge about Portuguese 14th Century history, your input would be much appreciated. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Should royals, such as the supposed Mary and Anne of Denmark, be given such surnames? See Talk:Mary and Anne of Denmark#Surname. DrKiernan (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is now under discussion for a merger at Talk:Anne, Queen of Great Britain/Archive 1#Merger. DrKiernan (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that we've still got articles like Lulach & Denis of Portugal (for examples). Are we still moving such articles to Name, King/Queen of X? If so, should those articles also be moved or are RMs required? GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is "recommended" to move to "Name, King of Country" (WP:NCNT#Sovereigns). I don't know much about Lulach but the article says he is known as simply that so it could be controversial if that one were to be moved. - dwc lr (talk)

I tried to move Denis of Portugal to Denis, King of Portugal, but it didn't work. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, unfortunately it is now impossible to do anything on Portuguese royals because of the sour atmosphere. It looks to me like the move is opposed solely out of sour grapes and not out of any other consideration. DrKiernan (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Baudouin of Belgium#Requested move, for another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And Talk:Charles I of Austria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Are these articles notable? Reigen (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Some more than others. I think it depends on what content can be included as one's like Russia, Romania, Brazil and so on are useful. One like Tuscany is perhaps a bit pointless and probably should redirect to the Austria-Hungary one anyway. - dwc lr (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

They have non-trivial POV problems. Many former monarchies have succession disputes (most notably the Crown of France, although the French rule of succession should be well-defined) and, since they are former monarchies, nobody can settle them; the family just divides. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The content is certainly notable, but many of them can probably be merged into articles on the monarchist movements if they exist... Nightw 09:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, there's an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Monarchism about the image that should be used in the "Part of a series on monarchism" template. Pichpich (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the Hanoverian law of succession Salic or semi-Salic? Reigen (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Salic, if the distinction is meaningful. When the House of Brunswick became extinct, the succession fell to the Hanoverians, not to the descendants in the female line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The same thing would have happened if the succession is semi-Salic; in semi-Salic succession, the descendants in the female line could only succeed once the entire male line had been exhausted. Reigen (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That is what I meant by suggesting the distinction was effectively meaningless. The question then must be what would happen if the entire male line of Welf IV were to die out; and the only possible answer is nobody knows. Even if such a thing had happened while there was still a throne in Hanover, it would have been more a question of international politics than of law. Now there is no competent authority to judge such matters, it is undecidable.

I see. I thought they had some formal or informal law which would definitely state whether the law of succession is either Salic or semi-Salic. Reigen (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Even the accession of Maria Theresa was not "semi-Salic" in this sense. That's a convenient lawyer's classification but not history. The male line of Maximillian amy have died out with her father, but not the House of Habsburg. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Emperor Charles VI was the last male of the House of Habsburg. Even if the Habsburgs would wish to abide by the Salic law, they cannot, since the entire male line has become extinct; hence, the Pragmatic Sanction. Reigen (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

In my experience bogus data sometimes emerge and perpetuate on Wikipedia. My shallow googling for the spurious ostrogothic king Eraric indicates no source except the infinite number of wikipedia copies. Did he exist, or did a false meme slink into wikipedia? If you know anything please answer at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Sourceless_alert:_Eraric Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an article on the title the Marquis de Lafayette. We have the article Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, which states that his father also held the title "Marquis de Lafayette". The article La Fayette family seems to indicate that the family was established by Gilbert du Motier (I suppose this would be as usage as a surname)... so there's no family lineage article. Does anyone have information necessary to build such an article on the marquisate? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette → Marquis de Lafayette (discuss) -- 65.92.180.188 (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There's many related articles which need updating, due to the birth of Isla Philips. Beginning with David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley article. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:House of Stewart (Scotland) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DrKiernan (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Came across the Mughal Abul-Hasan ibn Mirza Ghiyas Beg, newly renamed by User:Yazid97. My gut feel is that we can probably come up with a more concise name, but it's not really my field so can anyone help? There's a few more members of the family as red links at Asaf Khan.FlagSteward (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please join this discussion about images use on List of Norwegian monarchs and the articles of the Norwegian kings.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This article may need some attention. Hack (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You can say that again. Delete/merge into Tory Island? —Tamfang (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge, I think. There is some reliable source coverage of the "king" but not nearly enough to sustain an article in its own right. Hack (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I had a bit of a go at fixing it but gave up. The article is now at Kings of Tory and has been started anew. Hack (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Greeting everyone. There is currently a heated debate taking place at Talk:Elizabeth II#Third opinion in regards to the way the term 'Royal Family' should be capitalised. It has been established that the majority of the articles relating to the British Monarchy all tend to style the word in capitals when the context is specifically about the family of the Queen; and the same term would be in lower case if the words were referring to any royal family in general. Many wiki-guidelines have been referred and they haven't been very helpful, with most contradicting each other. Official sources also stated the words should be capitalised, while other sources into "proper noun styles" state the words should not be capitalised. Would it please be possible for members of this project to head over to the talk page and assist in settling this dispute. I have attempted to hold a WP:3O and provided evidence, but one user seems to be failing to "get it". Thanks, Wesley Mouse 15:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to clear up my meaning on this invite too, as I have received an allegation of posting a bias, canvassing and attacking invite. The wording of the above invite is meant to be outlining the entire debate at Talk:Elizabeth II covering what has been said so far in brief summary. Also when I said "one user seems to fail to get it", I meant one as in any one of the users may be failing to see the point others are making, so any assistance in resolving this would be highly appreciated. Thank you, Wesley Mouse 18:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just nominated Shunzhi Emperor of China for Good article. Reviewers are welcome to visit the the Shunzhi Emperor's talk page to open a review page! And could someone with more authority than I add Shunzhi Emperor to the list of good article nominees on this project page? Thank you! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have just nominated Shunzhi Emperor for featured status. The review page is here. Please come and participate! I would particularly like to know if the text makes sense to readers who don't specialize in Chinese history. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Royalty contains a large number of sub-categories and articles which, strictly speaking, are not royalty, because they concern other ranks of the peerage, such as barons. I've removed a few, such as Alexander Fermor-Hesketh, 3rd Baron Hesketh and Alexander Henderson, 1st Baron Faringdon. Some editors (myself included) left a note with the person who did this mass categorisation (see User talk:M'encarta), but despite the last comment there (20:21, 9 April 2012), I suspect that it has been ignored. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've thinned out the top category. DrKiernan (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexandre, Grand Prince of Gutleben is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandre, Grand Prince of Gutleben until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

I believe the correct title here is probably sth like Joseph de Caraman-Chimay the younger. Can someone take a look and fix please? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Since Lugnuts was the only person to reply, and since the link he has given is consistent with the wife, Clara Ward, have moved to Talk:Joseph, Prince de Caraman-Chimay. It isn't redirect locked, so anyone else can move elsewhere. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Several requests to delete articles entitled "Line of succession to the former throne of X" (e.g. Württemberg, Tuscany, Two Sicilies) have recently been proposed for deletion from Wikipedia by Pat Gallacher. Although Wikipedians from various projects are being notified of these requests for removal, I think those who monitor this page may also appreciate being notified. FactStraight (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

So it has now been proposed to restrict the list to only descendants of Elizabeth II. I thought anybody still monitoring this page might be interested in expressing their opinion on this. john k (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As I'm a self-declared republican, I won't push for these proposed changes. Anyways, I noticed that there's templates of deposed royal families that are titled as the following - Template:Romanian Royal Family, Template:Greek Royal Family, etc etc. IMHO, those should be changed to Template:Former Romanian Royal Family, Template:Former Greek Royal Family (or something similiar) for examples. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that the omission of "former" creates no ambiguity, and that a template's title is not visible in an article, how urgent is this? —Tamfang (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated that article for deletion, as we don't have Canadian head of state, British head of state, Jamaican head of state, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

file:King PrithviBirBikramShadev grandson of Maharaj Jung Bahadur.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments would be welcome at Talk:Charles Hay (British general)#Suggested move. Thanks. Opera hat (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Do royal dynasties, houses, family pages belong in this wikiproject? If so I'll go ahead and start adding it to their talk pages because I noticed a lot of them like House of Plantagenet, House of York, House of Normandy, Hauteville family aren't tagged as such. Thanks, —  dain- talk   16:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The editor who initially shepherded Suleiman the Magnificent to FA status has been inactive for many years and the quality of the article has begun to degrade. Any experts who can come in and buff the article up to snuff again would be appreciated.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This new article needs attention in terms of references, anglicised names, wikilinks, genealogy, etc. I thought I'd leave you a note, so if anyone is interested, please go ahead. De728631 (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone working in this area check this article which I suspect duplicates an existing article as explained on it talk page. Rmhermen (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Several Imperial Chinese royalty portraits have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• File:Empress Dowager Zhaosheng.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Empress Jiashun.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Empress Xiao Sheng of China.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Empress Xiao Yi Ren.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Empress Xiao Yi.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Empress Xiao Yi.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Guangxu Emperor.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

-- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Also

• File:Emperor Qianlong.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

-- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone put the same image as that of her daughter's article in place of the previous picture. I reverted this but would appreciate some confirmation that the images are correct on both articles. See talk page for further discussion. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Ducele de Halland.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Maharaj Jung London 1850 AD.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Emperor Gaozu of Later Jin where a large number of Chinese emperors are proposed for renaming. It also appears to be an adjustment in the Chinese emperor naming scheme is proposed (and not on WP:NC-ZH, where it should be) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please join in: Talk:Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands#Move discussion DBD 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

We could use some advice and guidance at Talk:List_of_Freemasons#Alphabetizing_members_of_the_British_Peerage as to how best to alphabetize various Royals and Peers who were/are Freemasons. Please swing by and help us out. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I just found House of Silva while patrolling newpages, and it feels mildly suspicious to me -- not least because it was created by someone whose username is "Silvafamilie". As well, the only references are other Wikipedia articles.

Those might both be innocent errors from well-intentioned amateurs. Or they might not. And I really don't know where to look for this sort of detail. Can anyone tell if this is genuine, or just a hoax? DS (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have begun an RfC on the question of whether it is bias to describe Elizabeth II as "Queen of the United Kingdom" in the infobox. Please comment at Talk:Elizabeth II#Infobox. DrKiernan (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. We're having a discussion on the fate of Horrible Histories TV show at: Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)#Moving on. As a relevant Wikiproject, we would greatly appreciate it if you would voice your opinion on the talk page, or to have a crack at editing and improving it. Thankyou for your time. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

image:King Boris III of Bulgaria with M36 helmet.jpg has been nominated for deeltion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject, some examples can be found at WP:NCROY. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect of NCROY. Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please come participate in the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France#Painting used in William of Gellone. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It occurs to me that it might be interesting and informative to categorise articles on noble titles, and perhaps royal ones too, by their inheritance clauses. i.e. broadly speaking, male-first primogeniture, male-only primogeniture, strict primogeniture, and "other". Typically this is already in the article, but "infobox'd" rather than by in category form. 84.203.38.5 (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Emperor Jimmu where a whole bunch of emperors are up for renaming (there are more emperors templated than that are listed in the rationale) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please join in discussion on splitting Talk:List of Georgian monarchs#Splitting into many lists.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry of Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be mainly based on forums. It doesn't have this projects tag either. Took it to BLPN but if someone here can make sure it complies to our sourcing policy that would be great. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

For your information ... Ravenswing 22:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

image:Petar VI of Croatia.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

See talk:Princess Fu where the title for the wife of a monarch is being discussed. Is it "princess" or "queen"? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Could someone with decent resources check out Jahan Shah IV? I did a regular Google search, Google Books, and Google Scholar, but found nothing on the guy. The only cited reference is a book whose title and author also get no results. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Akhenaten, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It has been suggested that I bring this to the attention of editors here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this legit? Hack (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Article deleted; creator blocked as a sockpuppet (see previous case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Royalist Lady/Archive). DrKiernan (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions on styles & titles of former royals A proposal is now pending to !vote to ban use of titles, honorifics and styles historically associated with titled members of no longer reigning families or to require that wherever such titles are mentioned in a Wikipedia bio, article or template that a disclaimer must be attached informing the reader that the title/style is not legal or is a courtesy title only. You may read opinions and express your views here. FactStraight (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's another AfC submission relevant to this Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Last month I nominated the article about Elizabeth of Bosnia for FA status, but it has not attracted enough reviewers yet. Elizabeth was queen of two realms, but is most notable for her disastrous regency. The article (rated GA) is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, and I would be very grateful if a member of this WikiProject commented on the nomination. Surtsicna (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a content dispute going on at several articles dealing with currently living members of the former royal family of Georgia — which consisted of one or more kingdoms / principalities until the early 19th century, when it was absorbed by the Russian empire (and later, after a brief independence, by the USSR). Georgia is a republic today, but some Georgians have proposed a revival of the monarchy. The content dispute involves at least three articles — Batonishvili, Anna Bagration-Gruzinsky, and Giorgi Bagrationi (born 2011) — and as I see the dispute, it seems to involve not only the question of whether or not the currently living descendants of former Georgian kings ought to be styled as royalty, but also which of two rival claims to any potential restoration of the monarchy ought to receive primary recognition. In addition to the articles themselves and their talk pages, please see discussions at User talk:FactStraight and User talk:Richwales (one of the two parties to the content dispute has been seeking my assistance on my own talk page). Note that I am an admin, but I consider myself involved regarding topics related to Georgia. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Both views, leading to conflicting edits, are well-summarized at Talk:Bagrationi dynasty#Current head of the Bagrations. The challenge has been raised as to whether the assertions published by or based on the websites of the two royal pretenders may be included in Wikipedia articles as adequately sourced. I treat each pretender's website (http://www.theroyalhouseofgeorgia.org/downloads/Addendum%2010.pdf for Prince Nugzar and http://www.royalhouseofgeorgia.ge/royal-house/head-of-the-royal-house-of-georgia for Prince David) as a reliable source with regard to traditional dynastic facts (names, titles, marriages, coat of arms) about its own members and agenda, although not about external topics or issues. At the unresolved ANI case, EdJohnston questioned whether such sites may be considered valid sources. FactStraight (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

FactStraight, I think it would be a mistake to treat these royal-house websites as though they were reliable historians. In my opinion a personal website is usable only for the opinions of the author of the site. A website kept by an organization (like these entities that call themselves royal houses) may not be usable for anything at all here. I doubt that they are reliable for what happened historically. These people are not the Oxford University Press and they don't employ fact-checkers. They are more like political parties. As to which house is truly royal, we might as well be writing fiction because there is probably no fact of the matter. Monarchies become credible because they rule, and these folks haven't ruled anything lately. I suggest you raise these questions at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If we waited until third-party sources outside of Georgia had given any attention to these matters the article about the little prince might get deleted under our policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: You've just mentioned the historians and you've made a very valid point here. The thing is that the royal status of Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky is not and was never disputed by anyone and the only controversial, biased and disputed persona is David Bagration of Mukhrani who claims to be a royalty while he is not and never was as he is just a nobility. I asked the user above to present the reliable sources supported by the historians, professors and those who have a degree in a field of history, genealogy of Bagrations of History of Georgia as such and all he presented was some kind of sources from news agencies what is indeed laughable and shows clearly that no such sources exist to prove David Bagration of Mukhrani's being a royalty. I want to note that the user above is blaming me for being non-neutral just because he by having no sources is pushing his bias everywhere to present David Bagration of Mukhrani being a royalty and on the other hand he is ignoring the undisputed status of royal family of Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky, his daughter and his grandchild. As I've asked the user above to present the reliable sources proving David being a royalty and taken into a consideration that there are none of these sources I'd like to present again who the real royalty is and always was.

Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky is recognized as a head of whole Bagrationi dynasty by:

• Professor Mariam Lortkipanidze, Doctor of Historical Sciences, head of the Georgian History Department at Tbilisi State University, leading scholar of the Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnography of the Georgian Academy of Sciences
• David Muskhelishvili Doctor of Historical Sciences (1973), Head of Department of Historical Geography at Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnography of the Georgian Scientific Academy (1967), Real Member of the Scientific National Academy of Georgia (1993), Head of Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology (1999-2006). Head of Commission of History, Archeology and Ethnology of Scientific National Academy of Georgia (2007 - present).
• Roin Metreveli, academician and historian. Rector of the Tbilisi State University. Editor of the Georgian Encyclopedia. Author of more than 300 scientific publications and books about Georgian history and Caucasiology. Chairman of the Board of Rectors of all Georgian Universities.
• Professor David Ninidze, Doctor of Historical Sciences
• Professor Giorgi Otkhmezuri, Doctor of Historical sciences
• Professor Givi Gambashidze
• Anania Japaridze, Member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan of Georgian Orthodox Church, a scholar of Georgian history

Adding to that Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky is recognized by all Bagrationi memebers (source here) in and outside Georgia except the only one family of David Bagration of Mukhrani who live in Spain and regard themselves as "royals".

I want to note that the propagandist and biased moves of the family of David Bagration of Mukhrani is supported by some Russian monarchists who want to justify the marriage of Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia's father to that Bagration who was from Mukhrani noble line. Maria Vladimirovna's critics saying that his father married a person of an unequal status is indeed right and correct as everyone from the House of Mukhrani being never a royalty but just nobility could not marry a Romanov. And now because of this Maria Vladimirovna by knowing this fact could not be reversed all she and her "imperial" family does is that they support the positions of David Bagration of Mukhrani everywhere in Europe to make him to seem a royalty and on the other hand to justify that she was born to 2 equal status royalty parents which is a totally a blatant lie because her mother was never a royalty just like David Bagration of Mukhrani. Giving all these very facts that's why some Spanish and Russian sources especially without knowing the true genealogical issues regarding the Bagrationi dynasty regard David Bagration of Mukhrani as "royalty" that being result of the active biased work done by his Russian supporters. David declared his father to be George XIII as the King of Georgia and his grandfather Erekle III King of Georgia which is clear how ridiculous their actions are. Their family line shows it perfectly what they represent and what are their origins and the some sources from news agencies cannot be of an equal strength as of the historians, professors, academicians and all those who have a degree in the history of Georgia, Bagrationi dynasty and all those issues regarding to the genealogical issues. Again, this is of highest possible importance issue and all those articles I've posted in the talk page of admin @Richwales: should be edited accordingly to the reliable historical sources and not some news agencies especially the Russo-Spanish news agencies who have zero knowledge in the Bagrationi origins. Jaqeli (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Burke's Royal Families of the World, Volume II, lists the Bagrations of Mukhrani. DrKiernan (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello!

There´s a discussion at Swedish Royal Family, started here and continued slightly below here about how to best mention Christopher O'Neill and three others who also married swedish princesses in the article. We´re at something of a stalemate, so if anyone would like to try to help us get a consensus, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Boris, Hereditary Prince of Montenegro#Requested_move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Scottish feudal barony of Grougar. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Scottish feudal barony of Preston (Prestonpans). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

All, In cruising around the pages of various nobility, sometimes I'll find a redlink (or 2, or 12...) to a family member. If I go look in the french or german wikipedia, sometimes I'll find a page about the person I'm interested in. In general, what is this project's opinion on changing those from straight redlinks to Interlanguage links where such pages exist? Regrettably, my language skills in these other languages is limited, so I could extract the bald facts, but I'm not yet up to translating the meat of these pages to bring them into the english wikipedia. 1bandsaw (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see the use but I am not a big fan on these "in article" links to other wikis as it hides the need to create articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Input requested. Should the default size of post-nominal letters set by this template remain at 85% or be increased to 100%? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prince George Karageorgevitch. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

see Talk:Yi Gu, Talk:Yi Kang, Talk:Yi Un for discussion on what the proper name of the article should be, and how titles should be attached to the article name. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is getting rather long, with many subjects untouched for a couple of years. I'm happy to move some to the archive, but I also see that User:ClueBot III provides the capability to move things to archive in an automated fashion. Would anyone object if I set that up for this page? 1bandsaw (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

With some help (thanks, Makyen!), auto-archiving is back up and running for this talk page. Topics that haven't been touched in a year get moved to the archive, and the indexing is consistent with the old archives. 1bandsaw (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The following AfD discussion may be of interest to editors on this project... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the mothers of Georgian monarchs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been working on the bringing the Royal Intermarriage article up to standard for a little while now. I've posted a request on the peer review page. here. It would be great if anyone has any input to give. Thanks! Sotakeit (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Order of the Eagle of Georgia (and the Seamless Tunic of Jesus Christ). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If anyone has any input regarding the inclusion of princely houses of Georgia on the Royal houses of Europe template, a discussion has been started here and your input would be much appreciated. The template has used an inclusive definition of 'royal houses', included Imperial, Princely, Ducal and Grand Ducal houses. However there seems to have arisen a dispute regarding the princely houses of Georgia. Sotakeit (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain why, but over the years Alexander's death date & thus Nicholas' accession date, have often been changed from 1 November (O.S. 20 October) to 20 October (O.S. 8 October), thus causing inconsistancies in both articles. The question is... which is correct? GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the story in the New York Tribune it was November 1st (Gregorian Calendar). -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone with better knowledge of these Julian/Gregorian dates, may have to go through these & perhaps other related bio articles, to clarify which dates are being used. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Tribune along with pretty much every Western newspaper would use the Gregorian (modern civil) Calendar. Russia was the only major country in the 1890's that still used the old Julian Calendar (which is still used by the Russian Orthodox Church). Russia formally adopted the modern calendar after the Communist Revolution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to comment on an active dispute on Talk:Kamehameha I/Archive 1#RfC: Which picture should be used for the lead image?.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been working on expanding the Royal Intermarriage article now for a little while and have just nominated it for Good Article Status. A review from any of you would be much appreciated. Many thanks. Sotakeit (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a source^[1] which indicates that Garsenda, Countess of Forcalquier was the mother of Gaston VII, Viscount of Béarn from a second marriage, presumably to Guillermo II de Montcada. However, both Gaston and Guillermo show that the Garsenda in question was the daughter of this woman by the only husband shown on her page. I don't see the sourcing for that data on those pages, but I'm reluctant to alter them based on a passing reference in a book that is not about her. Any suggestions? 1bandsaw (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Just because something is printed is no guarantee of accuracy. That said, if you have confidence in your source and the contradicted material is not sourced, my inclination is to go with your version. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have taken your advice and been bold. Thanks 1bandsaw (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Srnec brought in some additional data on Garsenda's talk page, so I've reverted. I appreciate the quick advice you both provided on this. 1bandsaw (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)